Preamble

The House met at a Quarter before Three of the Clock, Mr. SPEAKER in the Chair.

Oral Answers to Questions — HUNGARIAN NATIONAL ARMY (SOCIALIST ARRESTS).

Mr. R. RICHARDSON: 2.
asked whether Sir G. Clark has threatened to leave Buda Pesth if the Socialists recently arrested by the Hungarian National Army are not immediately released and safeguards against a recurrence of this kind of policy given; and whether these Socialists have yet been released?

The UNDER-SECRETARY of STATE for FOREIGN AFFAIRS (Mr. Cecil Harmsworth): Yes, sir. Sir G. Clark reported that he had to take this action, and that as a result the attitude of the Hungarian Government was perfectly satisfactory and the prisoners were released.

Oral Answers to Questions — EGYPT.

CASUALTIES AMONG POPULATION.

Mr. R. RICHARDSON: 3.
asked what is the number of casualties to date among the Egyptian population and our own troops in connection with the present disorder in Egypt?

Mr. HARMSWORTH: I would refer the hon. Member to my reply to the hon. Member for Rothwell on 11th November, which contains all the information received concerning casualties in Egypt up to 3rd November. Demonstrations of a minor character took place on 13th November in Cairo and Alexandria, and were dispersed by the police and Egyptian troops, who inflicted a few casualties among the rioters.
On 16th November more serious riots occurred in Cairo, and the police and Egyptian troops were compelled to use their rifles. Finally, it was found necessary to call for the assistance of British
troops in order to restore order. The total casualties are reported as thirteen Egyptians killed and eighty-seven wounded, most of which occurred before the intervention of British troops.
Minor disturbances occurred in Cairo on 18th November and in Alexandria on 19th November, when a few casualties occurred among the crowds. On 22nd November Captain Cohen, of the Egyptian Labour Corps, was shot from behind, near Shoubra Hospital, in Cairo, and subsequently died, and on the following day four shots were fired at five British soldiers, wounding one of them slightly.
On 26th November six shots were fired at two British soldiers in Cairo, wounding both of them, and also a Greek girl who was with them.
On two other occasions British officers have been fired at in Cairo, but have escaped unhurt.

Oral Answers to Questions — RUSSIA.

SERBIAN VOLUNTEERS.

Mr. W. R. SMITH: 4 and 6.
asked the Under-Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs (1) whether Captain Kristich has formed a regiment of Serbian volunteers to help General Denikin; whether the Serbian Government is financing the expedition;
(2) whether, in addition to a regiment already formed by Captain Kristich, two Serbian regiments will shortly be embarked at Salonika and dispatched to South Russia to help the volunteer army, as is stated in a Reuter message; and whether this country is financing the expedition?

The SECRETARY of STATE for WAR (Mr. Churchill): I have no information regarding the dispatch of Serbian volunteers to assist General Denikin. The British Government is not financing any such expedition.

Sir S. HOARE: What business is it of ours whether the Serbians enlist or not?

Mr. CHURCHILL: I do not think we have any interest in the matter.

GALICIAN TROOPS.

Mr. W. R. SMITH: 5.
asked the Under-Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether 15,000 Galician troops are now
aiding General Denikin; and whether this country is financing or supplying munitions to these troops?

Mr. CHURCHILL: I have been asked to reply. The answer to the first part of the question is in the affirmative. As regards the latter part it will be open to General Denikin to make use of the general supplies furnished to him.

PASSPORTS.

Mr. SWAN: 7.
asked whether any passports have been issued, or will be issued in the near future to persons desirous to enter Soviet Russian territory for trade or other purposes?

Mr. HARMSWORTH: No passports have been issued for British subjects to travel to Soviet Russian territory, and there is no present intention of altering the Regulations under which all such applications are refused.

Lieut.-Colonel MALONE: Is it not a fact that the blockade has been raised, and, if so, why are passports being refused?

Mr. HARMSWORTH: I do not think that point arises out of this question.

EMBASSY IN LONDON.

Mr. SWAN: 8.
asked whether financial support is still being given to the person or persons occupying the former Russian Embassy in London; whether that support is to be indefinitely continued; and whether he will arrange with the Prime Minister for the opinion of the House being taken on the present arrangement?

Mr. HARMSWORTH: The answer to the first part of the question is in the negative. The second and third parts do not therefore arise.

BRITISH TRADE WITH SOVIET RUSSIA.

Lieut.-Commander KENWORTHY: 50.
asked the Prime Minister if he is aware of the extensive preparations made by foreign merchants to open up trade with Soviet Russia as soon as communications with that country are open; and will steps be taken to see that British merchants have a fair opportunity of sharing in the export and import trade with Soviet Russia, in view of the likelihood of the present Government in Moscow surviving?

Sir H. GREENWOOD (Additional Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs): I have been asked to answer this question. The answer to the first part is in the affirmative. As regards the second part, the possibilities of resuming trade with Central Russia, when relations with that country are resumed, are not being lost sight of.

SIBERIAN OPERATIONS (RUSSIAN VOLUNTEERS).

Mr. W. R. SMITH: 65.
asked the Secretary of State for War whether four Russian subjects from Alexandria, among whom were Wager and Kaletsky, joined the 1/9th Hants, formerly in Siberia, as volunteers, and served with our troops in Siberia as privates; whether these men were brought to Vladivostok in charge of Captain M'Cormick and there handed over to the Russian authorities; what has been their subsequent fate; and whether the War Office will instruct the British Military Mission in Siberia to see that these men, who have served with a British regiment, are treated with consideration?

Mr. CHURCHILL: Inquiries are already being made, and I will write to the hon. Member as soon as possible.

Oral Answers to Questions — HIS MAJESTY'S CONSUL-GENERAL, HANKOW.

Captain HACKING: 9.
asked whether, in view of the fact that it was not in the general interests of the service nor on account of age that Sir William Wilkinson was called upon to retire from the position of His Majesty's Consul-General at Hankow, China, he will state the reasons why such compulsory retirement was insisted upon and carried into effect?

Mr. HARMSWORTH: As I informed the hon. and gallant Member in reply to his question on the 20th November, Sir-William Wilkinson was called upon to retire, in company with other Consular officers, in connection with the reorganisation of the Consular Service. As I stated on the same occasion, Sir William Wilkinson had, at the time of his retirement, completed the requisite number of years' service qualifying him for full pension, and that pension was actually awarded to him.

Oral Answers to Questions — DEMOBILISATION.

ROYAL ARMY MEDICAL CORPS.

Mr. ROBERT YOUNG: 12.
asked the Secretary of State for War when Private Fryer, No. 85981, 11th Company, Royal Army Medical Corps, Military Hospital, Canterbury, who has been in the Army since November, 1916, will be released, so that arrangements can be made for the resumption of his studies at college as a student of pharmacy?

Mr. CHURCHILL: Private Fryer has been retained owing to the difficulty of finding a suitable substitute and because his services were essential at the Military Hospital, Canterbury. Instructions have now been issued for his immediate demobilisation.

ROYAL ARMY ORDNANCE CORPS.

Mr. R. YOUNG: 13.
asked the Secretary of State for War whether he is aware that Private William Pechstone, Royal Army Ordnance Corps, No. 0/50932, Regimental Records Office, Red Barracks, Woolwich, was demobilised on 31st August and received his official discharge paper some weeks later, and that as yet he has not been paid the credits and gratuity due to him and can receive no satisfactory reply to his inquiries in relation thereto; whether this unsatisfactory state of affairs arises from faulty records regarding this man's transfer from the Royal Garrison Artillery while serving with the Army of the Rhine; and will he state how long a discharged soldier has to wait before his gratuity is paid to him?

Mr. CHURCHILL: Private Pechstone, Royal Army Ordnance Corps, received two payments on account of the sums due to him and has now received a final payment including war gratuity. Delay occurred in effecting a final settlement with him owing to the failure to report certain information as to the payments made to him abroad.

TROOPS AT BASRAH, MESOPOTAMIA.

Mr. ALBERT PARKINSON: 29.
asked the Secretary of State for War if he is aware that a large number of British soldiers at Basrah, Mesopotamia, are employed as clerks keeping Indian records, many of whom joined the Army under the Derby scheme, between 1st January and 1st July, 1916, and were with their units in the field until April, 1919;
and whether he will issue orders for men of the class stated to be demobilised at the earliest possible date?

Mr. CHURCHILL: The instructions at present in force provide for the dispatch from the port of embarkation of the men referred to by the hon. Member to be completed by 1st November, 1919, subject to the necessary transport being available. Instructions have already been sent by cable to Mesopotamia that men whose release is overdue are to be sent home by the first available ships.

Mr. G. LAMBERT: Can the right hon. Gentleman say whether there is any difficulty in obtaining transports to bring home these men, who are long overdue?

Mr. CHURCHILL: There are a considerable number of ships on the way, and they may arrive any day.

1914–15 RECRUITS.

Captain HACKING: 37.
asked the Secretary of State for War whether men who enlisted in 1914 and 1915 are still serving in Mesopotamia and in India; and whether he will cable instructions for their immediate release?

Mr. CHURCHILL: Instructions have already been cabled to Mesopotamia that men whose release is overdue are to be sent home by the first available ships. With regard to India, all 1914 men have been warned for embarkation en route for the United Kingdom, and the majority have embarked. All 1915 men have now proceeded to camps and should have embarked for the United Kingdom by third week of November.

RELEASE ON COMPASSIONATE GROUNDS.

Mr. HAYDAY: 63.
asked the Secretary of State for War whether he can now state the result of his inquiries into the case of Corporal Charles F. Field, No. 124562, Royal Army Medical Corps, Military Hospital, Galway, Ireland, who has applied for release on compassionate grounds on account of the serious state of his wife's health?

Mr. CHURCHILL: A preliminary report on this case has been received, and instructions have already been issued for Corporal Field to be demobilised as expeditiously as possible, having regard to the Regulations and Orders at present in force. A further report is awaited, and I will write to the hon. Member later.

Oral Answers to Questions — TERRITORIAL FORCE.

Lieut. - Colonel ASSHETON POWNALL: 14.
asked the Secretary of State for War whether he is yet in a position to make a statement with regard to the reconstitution of the Territorial Force; and if not, will he state when he expects to be in a position to do so?

Mr. CHURCHILL: I regret that I can add nothing at present to my reply on the 4th instant to my hon. and gallant Friend the Member for the Stone Division. I hope to make an announcement before the Adjournment.

Oral Answers to Questions — TRANSPORT ADMINISTRATION.

ARMY TRANSPORT LORRIES.

Mr. CLOUGH: 15.
asked how many lorries there are still in use between the Channel and Cologne; whether any of them are not needed by the Army; and, if so, how many, and when, in that case, it will be possible to re-ship these to alleviate the transport congestion in this country?

Mr. CHURCHILL: Two thousand two hundred and fifty-two lorries are still in use between the Channel and Cologne. They are all needed at present, but reductions will be made as rapidly as the needs of the Service permit. I may add that up to the present the Army has been able to dispense with lorries more rapidly than they can be shipped to this country, and I understand that this state of affairs is likely to continue for some time to come. Lorries that are dispensed with are handed over to the Disposal Board, and any inquiry regarding them should be addressed to the Ministry of Munitions.

RAILWAY WAGONS.

Mr. CLOUGH: 16.
asked the Secretary of State for War if he will give the number of British railway wagons still in France, the number sent back since the Armistice, and the present rate of reshipment; and if, in view of the shortage of rolling stock in Great Britain, he will endeavour to expedite the return of these wagons?

Mr. CHURCHILL: There are at present in France nearly 18,200 railway wagons lent to the War Department by British railway companies, and about 4,700 wagons belonging to the Depart-
ment, all of which are being returned for use in this country. Besides the above there are about 20,900 wagons belonging to the War Department which are being sold locally, as they are unsuitable for use on British railways. The total number of wagons (railway-owned and Department-owned) which have been returned since the Armistice is 11,677. The latest weekly shipment of wagons is 605. The temporary priority accorded to motor vehicles at the time of the railway strike has now ceased, and the full capacity of the train ferry service to Richborough is allocated to wagons.

Captain TERRELL: Can the right hon. Gentleman tell the House when all these wagons will be returned to this country, as there is a great shortage?

Mr. CHURCHILL: I certainly could not. I have stated the rate, but I cannot say when they will all be returned.

BASINGSTOKE AND ALTON LIGHT RAILWAYS.

Mr. W. NICHOLSON: 97.
asked the Minister of Transport whether his attention has been called to a petition which was forwarded recently to the President of the Board of Trade with reference to the reopening of the Basingstoke and Alton Light Railway, and which was signed by many of the residents in that neighbourhood; whether he is aware of the great inconvenience caused by the closing of this line to the inhabitants of the neighbourhood as well as to the general public; and whether, in view of the promise made by responsible Ministers at the last General Election to develop transport in rural districts, he will take immediate steps to have the line relaid and worked as formerly?

Major HENNESSY: 98.
asked the Minister of Transport whether he is aware of the great inconvenience which is caused to the public by the delay in the reopening of the, Basingstoke and Alton Light Railway; and whether he will take steps to reopen it as soon as possible?

Sir B. FALLE: 99.
asked the Minister of Transport if it is proposed to re-lay the Basingstoke and Alton Light Railway; and, if not, if he can give a reason?

Viscount WOLMER: 100.
asked whether it is intended to reopen the Alton-Basingstoke Light Railway; and, if so, when?

The PARLIAMENTARY SECRETARY to the MINISTRY of TRANSPORT (Mr. Neal): The question of reopening the Basingstoke and Alton Light Railway is now under consideration, and I hope that a decision will be arrived at shortly.

Oral Answers to Questions — BRITISH ARMY.

FEEDING-STUFFS (WASTE).

Captain TERRELL: 17.
asked whether the Army, in view of the extreme shortage of hay, can take steps to reduce waste in feeding stuffs to a far greater extent than at present?

Mr. CHURCHILL: I am not aware of any waste in the Army in this respect. If my hon. and gallant Friend will furnish particulars of any specific instances I will have inquiries made immediately.

YOUNG SOLDIERS (EGYPT AND INDIA).

Lieut. - Commander KENWORTHY: 19.
asked the Secretary of State for War if soldiers under twenty years of age and under nineteen years of age, respectively, are being sent, or have recently been sent, to Egypt or India; and, if so, when it may be expected that they will be relieved by older men who are volunteers for the Regular Army?

Mr. CHURCHILL: The answer to the first part of the hon. and gallant Member's question is in the affirmative, but I would explain that all troops now being sent abroad are voluntarily enlisted Regular soldiers.

Lieut. - Commander KENWORTHY: Might I have an answer to the last part of my question?

Mr. CHURCHILL: It, is not proposed to renew the Conscription Act.

Lieut. - Commander KENWORTHY: When will these men be relieved?

Mr. CHURCHILL: They must be relieved before 30th April, when the Act expires.

Lieut. - Commander KENWORTHY: Will that apply to India and Egypt?

Mr. CHURCHILL: In regard to men who are not conscripts, but volunteers, we shall relieve them as soon as our recruiting situation is sufficiently favourable to enable us to do so.

Mr. PENNEFATHER: May I ask whether the young men under twenty recently sent to India will be relieved?

Mr. CHURCHILL: Of course, as time passes they will cease to be under that age.

5TH DRAGOON GUARDS.

Colonel WEDGWOOD: 22.
asked the Secretary of State for War how many men of the 5th Dragoon Guards from the Curragh were sentenced to imprisonment for asking to be demobilised; whether the sentences have been revised; and when clemency can be extended to those still in prison?

Mr. CHURCHILL: I am making inquiries.

HOME SERVICE BATTALIONS.

Captain BROWN: 26.
asked the Secretary of State for War whether, in view of the fact that it is under consideration to select the Scots Greys as a home-service regiment, in order to give satisfaction to Scottish national sentiment, he will state what other three regiments are being considered, with a view to their stopping at home, to give satisfaction to the national sentiment of England, Ireland, and Wales, respectively?

Mr. CHURCHILL: I am afraid I can add nothing to the replies which I gave to my hon. and gallant Friend a week ago on this subject.

DEPUTY-ASSISTANT DIRECTORS OF REMOUNTS.

Earl WINTERTON: 27.
asked the Secretary of State for War for what reason twenty-three deputy-assistant directors of remounts, serving at home, are at present employed, in view of the fact that the same number were employed on the 11th November, 1916, and the number of horses in charge of the Army is very much less than it was then?

Mr. CHURCHILL: The appointments of deputy-assistant directors of remounts were created in 1912, their duties being mainly the administration and co-ordination of the arrangements for the purchase of horses on mobilisation. At the outbreak of War there were twenty-three deputy-assistant directors in charge of remount circles. During the War they were mainly concerned with the purchase of horses, the administration of remount depots, and the maintenance of units. They have now resumed their former duties with the addition of the administration of the boarding-out scheme.

TROOPS IN FRANCE.

Lieut.-Colonel W. GUINNESS: 42.
asked the Secretary of State for War the number of officers and other ranks, respectively, of the British Army now in France?

Mr. CHURCHILL: According to the latest Returns, which are dated 15th November, the number of officers is 3,500, and of other ranks 50,000.

Lieut.-Colonel GUINNESS: 43.
asked the number of officers and other ranks, respectively, of the British Army now stationed in the Paris area?

Mr. CHURCHILL: The present strength is twenty-five officers and 146 other ranks. It is expected that this will be reduced by the 31st December to twenty officers and twenty other ranks.

Oral Answers to Questions — TRADE UNION SECRETARIES, MONMOUTHSHIRE.

Mr. T. GRIFFITHS: 18.
asked whether the action of the military authorities in Wales in securing the services of the Chief Constable of Monmouthshire to obtain the names and addresses of secretaries of trade union branches in the district has been approved by him?

Mr. CHURCHILL: No communication expressing either approval or disapproval has been issued, but as I informed the hon. Member last Monday week, I do not propose to pursue the matter.

Mr. GRIFFITHS: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that the Chief Constable has been severely criticised by the county council for his action, and will he see that no such action will be taken without the sanction of the War Office in the future?

Mr. CHURCHILL: No, Sir; I am not prepared to take any special action in this case. I do not consider that I should intervene one way or the other.

Mr. W. R. SMITH: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that this has a tendency to create industrial unrest?

Mr. CHURCHILL: If people are going to get unrestful over a matter of this kind they must be looking about very far and wide for it.

Mr. GRIFFITHS: Will he allow people to make inquiries on his behalf?

Mr. CHURCHILL: I have already dealt with the merits of the question and I do not intend to take any steps one way or the other.

Mr. SMITH: What are the names and addresses of these people?

Mr. CHURCHILL: As I understand it, the local command thought it was a good thing for them to know the names and addresses of these men in case they wished to get into touch with there. They made this inquiry, which was unique, and not in the least derived from any general direction. I am not going to say they were wrong any more than I am going to say they were right.

Mr. SMITH: Will the right hon. Gentleman say what he means by "a good thing?"

Mr. CHURCHILL: A desirable course.

Oral Answers to Questions — LONDON OFFICES (MILITARY OCCU- PATION).

Sir W. H. DAVIES: 20.
asked the Secretary of State for War if commercial firms cannot obtain offices with vacant possession in the City of London because many offices in the City are still occupied by the military authorities; and when these offices will be made available for business purposes, either by the termination of the work or by the removal of the staffs to premises outside the radius of a. quarter of a mile of the Bank of England?

Mr. CHURCHILL: I am aware of the fact stated in the question, and we are doing our best to find other accommodation. Until this is done I am afraid I cannot name a date by which the offices now occupied will have been given up.

Mr. KILEY: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that there is a great need of office accommodation in the City?

Mr. CHURCHILL: Every effort is being made to vacate these premises. The Office of Works is always pressing the War Office to move to less crowded areas, and I will do everything in my power to facilitate it.

Captain TERRELL: Can the right hon. Gentleman say how many offices are at present occupied by the military authorities in the City of London?

Mr. SPEAKER: The hon. Member must give notice of that question.

Oral Answers to Questions — ROYAL AIR FORCE (BOULOGNE DEPOT).

Captain TERRELL: 21.
asked the Secretary of State for War what transport still is maintained at the port depot of the Royal Air Force at Boulogne; what work is done by the lorries; how many officers and other ranks are there still employed; and whether there is any other reason for this depot being kept open except that it forms a convenient booking-office for officers going East by way of Paris?

Captain GUEST (Joint Parliamentary Secretary to the Treasury): I have been asked to answer this question. The reply to the first part is that the mechanical transport at the port depot of the Royal Air Force at Boulogne consists of one touring car and one light tender; to the second part, that there are no lorries; to the third part, that the staff consists of one officer and four airmen; and to the fourth part, that this depot is being kept open to deal with the drafts of airmen arriving from England daily and with the evacuation of airmen from France.

Captain TERRELL: Will this depot be closed down?

Captain GUEST: As soon as it has served its purpose.

Oral Answers to Questions — CIVILIAN AIR SERVICE (PARTS- LONDON).

Lieut.-Colonel GUINNESS: 23.
asked the Secretary of State for War whether there are at present any facilities for the repair of British aeroplanes or the supply of spare parts in connection with the daily Paris-London air service at any aerodrome in France except the terminus at Le Bourget?

Captain GUEST: I have been asked to take this question, the reply to which is in the negative. Certain emergency landing-grounds exist between Gris Nez and Le Bourget. The importance of establishing a civil aerodrome with full facilities in the vicinity of Gris Nez is known to the French authorities, and it is understood that they intend to provide such an aerodrome.

Lieut.-Colonel GUINNESS: Is it not a matter for the British authorities? Is the hon. Gentleman aware that there are now three different British types of machine flying this route of 130 miles over French ground, and is it not obviously impossible for these companies to provide the necessary facilities for small adjustments before crossing the channel?

Captain GUEST: This question is complicated by the fact that we are dealing with a civilian service and not a military service, but the Department is in communication with the French authorities on the subject?

Lieut.-Colonel GUINNESS: May we be told when we shall have an Under-Secretary able to answer for the civilian service?

Oral Answers to Questions — ROYAL AIR FORCE.

Major STEEL: 25.
asked the Secretary of State for War whether he can make any statement as to what will be the constitution and strength of the Air Force in the year 1920?

Earl WINTERTON: 36.
asked the Secretary of State for War whether he can make any statement as to what will be the constitution and strength of the Air Force between the years 1920, 1921, and 1922?

Mr. CHURCHILL: I propose at an early date to lay before the House a Memorandum by the Chief of the Air Staff showing the proposed strength and composition of the Royal Air Force for the next few years.

Mr. PEMBERTON BILLING: Will an opportunity for debate be given?

Mr. CHURCHILL: Opportunities for debate are fixed in the regular course of the Parliamentary Session and do not arise in consequence of any announcement of this kind. I propose to give a very full and clear indication of the whole of the changes in the air service.

Lieut.-Commander KENWORTHY: During this Session?

Mr. BILLING: Is it proposed to appoint a new Minister or anyone to answer for the Air Service?

Mr. SPEAKER: That does not arise out of the question.

Oral Answers to Questions — WIRELESS COMMUNICATION (LONDON AND PARIS).

Lieut.-Colonel GUINNESS: 28.
asked the Secretary of State for War whether, owing to the interruptions caused by the Eiffel Tower wireless station, messages in connection with the London-Paris air-mail service can be received by the wireless installation at the Paris terminus at Le Bourget; and whether, in view of the importance of reports as to British and Channel weather conditions being received before the departure of the mail service, he is taking any steps to make arrangements with the Eiffel Tower station?

Captain GUEST: I have been asked to reply to this question. Routine times of transmission from London to Le Bourget have been arranged so as to avoid the interference referred to by my hon. and gallant Friend. In cases when it is doubtful if the message has been received by Le Bourget, a second message is always sent; during the last week these messages have been received regularly, and no repetition has been required. Air route reports of the British and Channel weather conditions are sent from London to Le Bourget between 8 a.m. and 3 p.m.

Lieut.-Colonel GUINNESS: Has an arrangement actually been made with the Eiffel Tower Company, and is the hon. and gallant. Gentleman aware that last week these messages were not getting through because, by mistake or misunderstanding, they were regularly jammed by the Eiffel Tower station?

Captain GUEST: I am informed this afternoon that an arrangement for a special allowance of time has been made in regard to the Eiffel Tower station.

Oral Answers to Questions — WAR OFFICE.

CIVILIAN CLERKS, YORK.

Sir JOHN BUTCHER: 30.
asked the Secretary of State for War whether his attention has been called to the terms of A.C.I. 1,280, of 1919, which states that the wages of civil subordinates of the War Office will be based on local conditions; whether he is aware, that the wages of the civil subordinates of the War Office at York are not based on local conditions and that the wages of the civilian clerks of the War Office at York are very considerably lower than those of the clerks
employed by firms and companies in the locality; and whether he will take immediate steps to remedy this state of things?

Mr. CHURCHILL: The policy of the War Department is governed generally by the Fair Wages Resolution of the House of Commons, which is reproduced in the instructions referred to. If the wages paid to any classes of employés at York are not in accord with the Fair Wages Resolution, I shall be happy to look into the matter on the receipt of particulars. The pay of the civilian clerks referred to is already under consideration.

Sir J. BUTCHER: 31.
asked the Secretary of State for War whether a Report of the proceedings of a meeting of civil subordinates of the War Office in York was forwarded to the War Office on 5th March, 1919, for consideration; whether any decision has yet been reached on the questions raised by that Report; if so, whether such decision has been communicated to the parties concerned; and, if no such decision has been reached, what is the cause of the delay and when a decision may be expected?

Mr. CHURCHILL: The report was received and dealt with, and my information is to the effect that the committee has long ago been informed of the contents of the War Office reply.

Sir J. BUTCHER: In view of the fact that my information with regard to this matter is different from that of the right hon. Gentleman, could he tell me when the decision was conveyed to the people in York?

Mr. CHURCHILL: I think my hon. and learned Friend and I had better exchange confidences afterwards.

Sir J. BUTCHER: 32.
asked the Secretary of State for War whether questions in dispute between the War Office and their civil subordinates can be referred to a conciliation and arbitration board for their decision; and, if so, what is the method and procedure by which such questions can be so referred?

Mr. CHURCHILL: If the classes in question fall within the terms of reference of the Civil Service Arbitration Board, they may refer differences to that board. The Secretary of the board will give any information as to procedure on application.
For other classes certain machinery has been provided by the Industrial Courts Act, 1919, regarding which application should be made to the Ministry of Labour.

GENERAL STAFF (ORGANISATION).

Brigadier - General COCKERILL: 69.
asked the Secretary of State for War whether, seeing that the organisation of the General Staff and of the War Office, adopted in 1904 upon the recommendation of the War Office (Reconstitution) Committee, was substantially altered during the War, e.g., as regards the General Staff, by the creation of a directorate of military intelligence, and, as regards the other military Departments, by the transfer of duties to improvised Departments, it would not be desirable to ascertain by inquiry from the officers concerned, while the facts are fresh in their memory, whether, in their opinion, the revised organisation was superior to that recommended by Lord Esher's Committee and in every respect adapted to the needs of modern war?

Mr. CHURCHILL: These matters are engaging my attention, and I will, of course, avail myself of any and every source of information that presents itself.

Oral Answers to Questions — NAVAL AND MILITARY PENSIONS AND GRANTS.

WOUND GRATUITY.

Major BORWICK: 35.
asked the Secretary of State for War if he is aware that Captain T. Stanley Smith applied for a wound gratuity in February, 1919; that he received no acknowledgment of his application till 29th April; that he has himself written again to the War Office; that his solicitors have written three times; that up to date the War Office has taken no decisive action; and when it is likely that this claim will be settled?

Mr. CHURCHILL: I understand my right hon. Friend wrote to the hon. and gallant Member on Saturday last regarding this case.

Oral Answers to Questions — WAR DECORATIONS (VOLUNTEER FORCE).

Mr. MATTHEWS: 38.
asked the Secretary of State for War whether the members of the Volunteer Force who served
during the whole period of the War are to receive any medal for the same; and, failing general recognition, are those officers and other ranks who gave up three months at personal sacrifice to act as the mainstay of the national defence on the East Coast from June to September, 1918, to receive any recognition for their services in a time of great need?

Mr. CHURCHILL: I would refer my hon. Friend to the reply on the 5th November to my hon. and gallant Friend the Member for South Tottenham, to the effect that the matter is now under consideration.

Oral Answers to Questions — UNITED SERVICES FUND.

Mr. CAPE: 44.
asked the Secretary of State for War whether he is aware that the National Union of Ex-Service Men has not been represented on the Executive Committee of the United Services Fund; and whether he will take steps to have representatives of this organisation included before the Royal Charter is published?

Mr. CHURCHILL: In the constitution of the Committee efforts have been made to secure an adequate representation of ex-Service men, and it is considered that this object has been sufficiently attained through the medium of the three great societies, namely, the Comrades of the Great War, the National Federation of Discharged and Demobilised Sailors and Soldiers, and the National Association of Discharged and Demobilised Sailors and Soldiers. It would be manifestly impossible to provide for the representation on the Committee of all the associations of ex-Service men which are at present or may in the future be formed.

Lieut. - Commander KENWORTHY: In case of the union obtaining greater strength, is it possible to co-opt extra members from it on to this body?

Mr. CHURCHILL: I cannot say, but the management of the fund will have considerable powers to meet any new situation that may arise.

Oral Answers to Questions — GERMANY.

POLICY OF ALLIES.

Lieut.-Commander KENWORTHY: 45.
asked the Prime Minister whether, in view of the indications of a monarchist and
militarist reaction in Germay, the Allies will do all in their power to strengthen the hands of the existing democratic German Government?

Mr. BONAR LAW (Leader of the House): I do not know in what way the hon. Member would suggest that the Allies should intervene in such a matter.

AIRSHIPS (BERLIN AND FRIEDRICHSHAFEN).

Colonel NEWMAN: 67.
asked the Secretary of State for War whether a service of dirigible airships is being maintained between Berlin and Friedrichshafen; how many airships are so employed; and will he say whether the establishment and maintenance of a fleet of airships in Germany, whether by the state or private individuals, was a matter laid down in the Peace Treaty?

Captain GUEST: I have been asked to reply. The answer to the first part of my hon. and gallant Friend's question is in the affirmative; to the second part, that, so far as is known, only one airship—the Bodensee—has been so employed. As regards the third part, I would suggest that the question should be addressed to my right hon. Friend the Under-Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs.

SHIPS REPAIRS.

Mr. HURD: 80.
asked the Parliamentary Secretary to the Shipping Controller in what circumstances the contract for the repair of thirty-three German ships interned in South American waters has been given to German instead of Canadian firms tendering for the work; what were the prices of the contracts, respectively; what will be the cost of towing the vessels to Germany; and whether the present arrangement will involve a year's delay?

The PARLIAMENTARY SECRETARY to the MINISTRY of SHIPPING (Colonel Wilson): I would refer the hon. Member to the reply which I gave on this subject to the hon. Member for Eastbourne on the 27th November. The vessels which could not be properly repaired on the spot are being towed to German yards to be repaired, the expenses of towage and of repair being met by Germany. With regard to the last paragraph of the question, no delay such as is suggested should be occasioned, on the contrary, the work should be expedited by this arrangement, as the majority of the ships were built in
Germany and the German shipbuilding firms are in possession of the drawing patterns, etc., of the damaged parts. I must again point out that even if it had been possible for any British or Colonial firm to have undertaken the repairs, the cost would have amounted to a very large sum of money, which would have had to be financed in cash by the British Government.

Sir A. WILLIAMSON: The hon. Gentleman says the cost of these repairs is to be borne by Germany. Do I understand, therefore, that the ships are to go back to Germany, and, further, are these steamers or sailing vessels?

Colonel WILSON: Steamers—about 250,000 tons—and the cost of repairs and towing will be borne by Germany. The vessels will be handed over for allocation by the Reparation Commission.

Oral Answers to Questions — FOOD SUPPLIES.

MARGARINE AND BUTTER.

Mr. C. EDWARDS: 48.
asked the Prime Minister whether he has received a communication from the Monmouth County Council enclosing a report upon the relative values of margarine and butter; and whether he will consider altering the law so as to compel the makers of margarine to ensure that it shall contain the vitamines similar to those in natural butter, and to which much of its food value is due?

The MINISTER of HEALTH (Dr. Addison): I have been asked to reply to this question. I have seen a copy of a resolution of the Monmouthshire County Council on this subject, and I should be glad to receive a copy of the report therein mentioned. The presence or absence of what are known as vitamines in various articles of food is at the present time the subject of active research. I am afraid, however, that the knowledge at present available is not at present sufficient to make the hon. Member's suggestion a practicable one.

PIGEONS.

Captain R. TERRELL: 80.
asked the Food Controller whether, in view of the value of pigeons as food, he will consider the desirability of urging the revenue
authorities to waive the Entertainments Tax on country shows held to improve the breed of pigeons?

The MINISTER of FOOD (Mr. Roberts): I do not in all the circumstances consider that I should be justified in urging the Commissioners of Customs and Excise to make an exception from their general practice in favour of pigeon shows.

FROZEN MEAT (PRICES).

Major - General Sir NEWTON MOORE: 89.
asked the Food Controller if the Ministry of Food, in charging the public high prices for the frozen meat imported from Australasia, has been prompted by an endeavour to amass a fund out of which the losses the Department is making on their purchase of American and home-killed meat is to be covered; whether he will consider the desirability of discontinuing the policy and taking steps to place the cheaper meat on the market at something nearer cost price, so that it may be at the disposal of the public who are not now willing or able to pay for the higher-grade home-grown meat; and whether, as the Ministry of Food have publicly stated that it is proposed to discontinue the control of meat very shortly, he will consent to give up the control of distribution forthwith, and so permit free trade in meat, retaining only the present maximum prices Order?

Mr. ROBERTS: During the War and entirely as a result of war conditions the price of meat imported into this country was averaged, and it was sold sit a figure which was somewhat in excess of the cost of Australasian meat. No Government purchases were, however, made in North America, after the end of 1918; and since that date no imported meat has been bought by the Government at a price in excess of the figure at which it is sold in this country. The price of Australasian mutton and lamb was reduced by 2d. per lb. on the 10th November, and this meat is now being sold at its economic value. As regards the last part of the question, no restriction is now imposed on the quantity of meat which a registered customer may obtain from his butcher, but I do not consider that it is practicable to remove the control of distribution unless control is discontinued entirely. On this point I am now in consultation with the President of the Board of Trade and the President of the Board of Agriculture.

Sir N. MOORE: Is it not a fact that Australian meat bought at 5d. per lb. and landed here at 9d. is being sold at 1s. 10d. a lb.?

Mr. ROBERTS: I think that statement does not differ from the admission I have made in my reply. That was the case during the War, when rationing was in existence and the meat was pooled and sold at a flat price, but we are coming back to economic conditions.

Sir N. MOORE: Therefore, will not the right hon. Gentleman allow people to buy cheap meat if they require it, and at economic prices, and not have to pay 1s. 10d. a lb.?

Mr. ROBERTS: That involves the whole question of control, and I am, in conjunction with the President of the Board of Trade and Board of Agriculture, considering whether we shall not decontrol.

Mr. KILEY: Is it not a fact that there has been a loss of something like £5,000,000?

BASIC SLAG.

Mr. FORESTIER-WALKER: 92.
asked the Parliamentary Secretary to time Board of Agriculture if he is aware of the impossibility of obtaining basic slag of a higher percentage of total phosphates than 24; and whether, in view of the inferior quality, he will make arrangements in order that it may be possible for agriculturists to obtain slag of a pre-war standard?

The PARLIAMENTARY SECRETARY to the BOARD of AGRICULTURE (Sir Arthur Boscawen): My hon. Friend has been misinformed. It is quite possible to obtain basic slag of a higher percentage of total phosphates than 24 per cent. During the five months, ending 31st October, 1919, the total deliveries of basic slag containing upwards of 24 per cent. total phosphates amounted to 66,200 tons. The real cause of any shortage that may exist is the greatly increased demand. The production of high-grade slag is not directly dependent on the agricultural demand, but is primarily a question of steel works practice. Over this practice the Board have no control.

Mr. FORESTIER-WALKER: Can the hon. Gentleman tell me where I can get it?

Sir A. BOSCAWEN: If my hon. Friend will write me, I will endeavour to direct him into the proper direction.

Oral Answers to Questions — GOVERNMENT NEWSPAPER PROPAGANDA.

Mr. C. EDWARDS: 51.
asked the Lord Privy Seal whether he has received letters from printing and kindred trade federations protesting against the establishment of a Government Department for the distribution of newspaper articles, and asking that the names of those financially interested shall be disclosed?

Mr. BONAR LAW: The answer is in the negative.

Oral Answers to Questions — QUESTIONS TO MINISTERS.

Sir HENRY COWAN: 52.
asked the Lord Privy Seal whether his attention has been called to the fact that, notwithstanding the recent limitation to four of the number of questions for oral answer which may be asked by any one hon. Member on the same day, the questions put down for oral answer are generally greatly in excess of any number that can be so replied to; and whether, in order to give equal opportunity to all Members of obtaining oral answers to their questions, steps will be taken, either to further limit the number of such questions put down for any one day, or to limit the number of days per week for which any one Member may put down questions for oral reply?

Mr. BONAR LAW: I think it might be desirable that each Member should be limited to two questions each day, but this is a matter for the House to decide.
The House will remember that Mr. Speaker, after assuring himself that his action had the approval of the House, limited the number to 4, and I suggest that my hon. Friend might, with advantage, ask Mr. Speaker, after questions, whether he would be prepared in the same way to still further limit the number.

Mr. HOGGE: Is my right hon. Friend aware that although many Members may have the maximum of four questions down on one day it may only be on one day a week? Will he consider the fact that the number has already been reduced from eight to four, and make that the average for the week rather than for one day?

Mr. BONAR LAW: As I have said, this is really a question for the House, and it is the general wish that has to be taken into account rather than the view of individual Members. Perhaps if my hon. Friend will
put the question I suggested to Mr. Speaker it may be possible to ascertain what the view of the House is.

Sir S. HOARE: Will the House have an opportunity of expressing its views before any change is made, seeing that there are many hon. Members who would resist most strongly a further reduction of the number?

Mr. BONAR LAW: I cannot add anything to what I have said. On the last occasion a change was made by Mr. Speaker when he had satisfied himself it was the general view of the House. I suggest a question can be put to him and he will be able to judge what the wish of the House is.

Mr. ROSE: Does not the right hon. Gentleman remember that Mr. Speaker specifically asked at the beginning of this Session that questions should not be put down referring to individual cases? Will he do what he can to influence the House as far as possible to act upon that suggestion?

Mr. BILLING: May I ask the right hon. Gentleman whether he will have regard to the fact that a number of hon. Members put down questions and do not take the trouble to ask them, but get them put by a deputy, thereby preventing questions in the name of hon. Members on the Paper who may be present from being reached. Will he see that Members who put down questions are here to ask them?

Sir H. COWAN: Has the right hon. Gentleman considered the alternative method contained in the question, as to a limitation in the number of days per week on which any one Member may put questions down for oral reply?

Mr. BONAR LAW: As regards the last question, I do not think it would be found practicable to work it. As regards the suggestion of the hon. Member (Mr. Rose), it seems to be an eminently reasonable proposal, but I cannot hold any hope that anything I might say would influence hon. Members in that direction. In reply to the hon. Member (Mr. Billing), it would appear to be obvious that questions on the Paper should be put by hon. Members in whose names they stand.

Mr. DEVLIN: Will the right hon. Gentleman give the House an opportunity of declaring its opinion whether an additional fifteen minutes should be allowed for questions? Is he not aware that perhaps ques-
tions are the most important business of this House, and that even more useful and more important are the supplemental questions? Can he therefore give the House an opportunity of discussing this matter in its entirety, so that its will may be declared on a matter which is essentially one for the House itself?

Mr. BONAR LAW: I agree with most of what the hon. Member has said, but I do not see any easy method of having such a discussion as the hon. Gentleman suggests. It would be difficult to give a day, and we have no time before the Recess. With regard to the suggestion that a further quarter of an hour should be allowed, the Government have no objection to that if it is the wish of the House. I would suggest the hon. Member should himself get Memorial signed. If it were signed by half the Members of the House, that would settle the question.

Mr. DEVLIN: Is the right hon. Gentleman not aware that I am not the proper person to do that? I am only one amongst many.

Mr. BONAR LAW: I am not in the least aware of that. The hon. Member, I think, is one of the, most competent Members.

Lieut.-Colonel GUINNESS: Will the right hon. Gentleman put down a Motion to amend Standing Orders, and leave it to a free vote of the House?

Sir H. COWAN (later): May I call your attention, Sir, to the matter as to which the Leader of the House said that I should ask your guidance, and that is as to whether there should be a further limitation of the number of questions which might be addressed any afternoon orally by a Member?

Sir S. HOARE: Before you give an answer, Sir, may I draw your attention to the fact that to-day there were ninety-seven questions on the Paper actually got through. In view of the fact that private Members have so few opportunities of questioning the Government, I would ask before you give your ruling to give the House an opportunity, to which the Leader of the House already alluded, of deciding whether a, better solution of this matter would not be an extension of the time for questions?

Lieut.-Commander KENWORTHY: If as I understand you are bound to take the sense of the House on this very important
matter, may I very respectfully put it that it would be as well to postpone this until all Members of the House have an opportunity of knowing what is the question that will be decided?

Mr. SPEAKER: The question put by the hon. and gallant Gentleman shows the impossibility of my taking the sense of the House now. It is quite clear that, although possibly a majority may be in favour of limiting the number of questions, a considerable minority would be opposed to it. I cannot possibly undertake to decide the matter. It must be a question for the decision of the House. It might be better to go on for the rest of this Session with the arrangements we have got now, and at the commencement of the new Session, when we generally overhaul our procedure to some extent, we might then consider the question whether it would be desirable to limit the number of questions which any Member can ask on any one day. There is also the possibility of extending the time allowed for questions. In that connection I would remind the House that in 1916, by Resolution of the House, the period was extended from a quarter to four to four o'clock for that Session. That is one solution of the difficulty, but I very respectfully must decline to pronounce ex cathedrâ any decision. On a former occasion the House almost unanimously were favourable to a reduction, and there was no difficulty in introducing the change.

Mr. HOGGE: Might I suggest that a large number of questions on the Paper, which relate to individual eases, might quite reasonably be put down as unstarred questions, and if the Member regarded the answer to the unstarred question as unsatisfactory he could have it repeated as a starred question?

Mr. BILLING: May I ask, Sir, whether you would be prepared to consider the suggestion that any Member who puts a question down, must be present to ask that question himself? In the case of personal matters, would it not be better that the general practice should be to write to the party concerned when the answer would be much more full and will thus avoid wasting public money by putting the question down on the Paper?

Mr. SPEAKER: That, again, I think, is a matter which I must leave to hon. Members who know what motives actuate them in asking questions.

Oral Answers to Questions — IMPORTS AND EXPORTS REGULA- TION BILL.

PROCEDURE: MR. SPEAKER'S RULING.

Colonel GRETTON: 53.
asked the Lord Privy Seal if it is the intention of the Government to appoint a Select Committee, with power to send for witnesses and papers, to report on the Imports and Exports Regulation Bill before the Committee stage of that Bill, as was done in the case of the Government of India Bill?

Mr. BONAR LAW: The Government are not prepared to adopt my hon. Friend's suggestion.

Mr. GODFREY LOCKER-LAMPSON: 54.
asked the Lord Privy Seal whether it is the intention of the Government to leave the Second Reading of the Imports and Exports Regulation Bill to the free vote of the House?

Mr. BONAR LAW: The answer is in the negative.

Lord R. CECIL (later): On a point of Order. Does not the Imports and Exports Regulation Bill, in effect, impose taxes, though they are called fines and fees? Ought it not, therefore, to originate in Committee of Ways and Means? Does not the Bill, in effect, empower someone other than Parliament to levy taxes, and under the common law of Parliament is not the Committee of Ways and Means the only body which can impose a tax? It is not necessary to call attention to the decision of the Chairman of Ways and Means on the 2nd of July, which lays that down. It is the well-known common law of Parliament. Will not the Bill, in effect, create taxes the proceeds of which have not been demanded by the Crown for the public service and have not been granted by the Commons in response to that demand? May I make the following observations? This question of the imposition of taxation is, of course, one of the most important parts of our constitutional machinery, and one of the most delicate parts of that machinery. For that reason it has always been hedged around by a variety of safeguards which I apprehend, it is of the utmost importance should be preserved. I submit that among those safeguards is the rule that no tax should be imposed without the special procedure indicated in my question. This is not a
charge on the public which will afterwards become the subject of a tax, if necessary, but it is the actual imposition of a tax. Where it is the actual imposition of a tax, I submit that no tax has ever been imposed except with a prior Resolution; no Bill to impose a tax has ever been considered by this House except on a prior Resolution in Committee of Ways and Means. I submit, secondly, that it is a fundamental rule that this House doss not delegate its power of taxation; and, thirdly, that no tax may be raised except to meet actual financial need. If these two last principles are to be infringed it ought to be done only by the most solemn procedure of this House, which has always been a Resolution first and a Bill following the Resolution. For these very short reasons I submit that this Bill is out of order.

Sir F. BANBURY: Before you give a ruling, Mr. Speaker, may I ask two questions? The first is whether, in view of the fact that by the common law of Parliament no taxation can be imposed unless it is imposed to meet the necessity and the financial needs of the year, and whether as those financial needs of the year are voted by the House in the Finance Bill, and as the Finance Bill in this House has already been passed, if taxation is imposed will not a new Finance Bill be required? The second question is whether this Bill, as far as Clause 17 is concerned, does not impose taxation? It is true that it says certain things are to be prohibited, but it goes on to say that that prohibition need not take place if people pay in order to be let off. The second part deals with the expenditure of money. Is it possible to combine in one Bill a part which imposes taxation and which should originate in Committee of Ways and Means, and another part imposing expenditure which should originate in Committee of the Whole House?

Mr. SPEAKER: I am obliged to the Noble Lord for having given me notice of the question. I have, therefore, been in a position to prepare a considered reply. I will take the first two questions together. For the purpose of Second Reading, to which alone my attention is now being given, I have to look at the Bill without seeing the Clauses in italics. Being in italics, they are supposed not to be there, and I look upon them as blank spaces to be filled in later. I have to ask myself whether the Bill can stand without them.
I think so, and to the first question my answer is that the Bill is one designed in the exceptional circumstances of the day, in respect of foreign exchanges, to regulate and stabilise the industries of this country by forbidding certain exports and imports, and other purposes with the same object. The main purpose of the Bill is to exclude dumped goods and goods competing with key industries, and the imposition of charges in the nature of Import Duties is incidental to the adoption of such a policy. The Bill, therefore, need not originate in Committee of Ways and Means.
(2). The second point is whether it requires a Resolution in Ways and Means to impose the fines for importation and sale under Clauses 3 and 4: and fees under Clause 10. My answer is yes. These fines, being in the nature of Import Duties, require Resolutions in Committee of Ways and Means.
(3). The third question is whether the House of Commons can divest itself of the responsibility of fixing the rates and amounts of these fines and fees and hand that duty over to an outside body such as a Trade Regulation Committee. It has been part of the unwritten law of Parliament that the goods upon which and the rates at which taxes are to be levied shall be fixed and determined by the House of Commons itself. I am not prepared to say that the House cannot delegate that power to some other body such as the Trade Regulation Committee. I will only say that at present I am not aware of any similar case. It may be urged that if Parliament is desirous of altering its practice it should be done in some definite, specific and formal manner, and not a mere adjunct to other proposals, just as when we desire to alter our common law we do so by passing a Statute for that express purpose. In this connection I might refer the House to a recent ruling of the Chairman of Ways and Means on 2nd July, 1917, when he declined to countenance any departure from the rule that the authority to impose taxation is the Committee of Ways and Means. I understand, also, that when it was proposed that a luxury tax should be imposed on articles, and at rates, to be fixed by a Select Committee, the Chairman of Ways and Means took a similar objection and declined to admit the proposal. But, upon the assumption—an assumption which I am bound to make —that the House of Commons desires to impose these fines and fees, which, owing
to the nature of the circumstances in which we now find ourselves, may vary from week to week, or, at all events, from month to month, how can it be done? It is evidently impossible to bring in a Bill ever, month to deal with a fresh situation. It seems to me to be reasonable to fix either certain limits, or a ratio which the fine is to bear to the cost of the article, and to give to some authority the duty of fixing the price and applying the-ratio or determining the exact figure of the fine, or in some similar fashion. As to the question whether the proceeds of these taxes have been demanded by the Crown for the service of the year, in my view that point does not arise at this stage, because, for the purpose of Second Reading, there is no such proposal in the Bill.

Lord R. CECIL: I am very much obliged for that answer. May I put this question? I do not know whether it is beyond the function of the Chair. When it is desired to make a great departure in our constitutional practice has it not always been the practice to proceed first by Resolution, and, after the Resolution has been passed, to bring in a Bill? If I recollect rightly, that was the practice on questions of franchise, and in any questions of great moment, I submit, that has always been the practice. Since you have been good enough to tell us that this provides for an entirely new departure in our taxing machinery, something which the House has never seen before, I submit that it would have been more regular, and therefore more proper, for the Government to have proceeded by Resolution in the first instance, rather than by introducing the Bill without a Resolution.

Mr. SPEAKER: I know that the system of starting by Resolution was one that obtained at one time, and that it was very frequently adopted, but of late years it has not been so often adopted. I think the tendency of the House in late years, certainly during the last fifteen or twenty years, has been to proceed directly with Bills and not to found them on a Resolution.

Lord R. CECIL: May I respectfully say that I entirely agree? But where you have an entirely exceptional measure, then, I submit, the old practice is the proper one to resort to, because it is the most formal way in which this House can proceed to make alterations in the law.

Sir D. MACLEAN: For the purpose of making it clear to one or two Members
like myself who would wish to have a very clear view on this most important question, may I ask whether I am correct in deducing from your ruling that you regard this Bill simply as an ordinary Bill containing Clauses in italics which, therefore, cannot be regarded by you on Second Reading, but which will require at some time or other a Money Resolution; that you do not regard this as a Finance Bill in the recognised and proper acceptance of the term; that you do not differentiate it at all from, say, a Land Bill for Scotland, which requires money to back it, or any other Bill of that kind, but that it simply requires a Money Resolution?

Mr. SPEAKER: I do not consider it needs a Money Resolution in the ordinary sense. There is one Clause which does require it, and that is Clause 17, I think. That will require a Money Resolution in the ordinary sense of the term. I think that the whole Bill hangs together with one purpose. The so-called taxation purposes are incidental and adjuncts to that.

Sir F. BANBURY: When the Second Reading has been obtained, will it not be necessary to have a Finance Bill, so that the various taxes may be confirmed by this House?

Mr. SPEAKER: In a Finance Bill it would be necessary to set up a Committee of Ways and Means for the purpose of taking certain Resolutions in Ways and Means. I should not like to commit myself as to whether those Resolutions would require an Instruction or not. Possibly it might require an Instruction to the Committee on the Bill that they should have power to embody those Resolutions in the Bill.

Lieut.-Colonel MURRAY: Is it not the constitutional practice to found such Bills upon Resolutions in this House, and is this not an analogous case to many which we have had?

Mr. SPEAKER: I do not deny that sometimes legislation is founded on Resolution. I rather think that the Representation of the People Bill was founded upon simply one general Resolution. I am not quite sure about that, and all I say is that it can be done both ways. It is not for me to say which way should be adopted.

Sir D. MACLEAN: Is it your opinion, since this Money Resolution is one which, you have pointed out, must arise in Com-
mittee of Ways and Means, that this Bill therefore is a Bill which will have to be considered by Committee of the Whole House, and not go upstairs?

Mr. SPEAKER: I think that is a matter for the House to decide.

Oral Answers to Questions — COTTON AND WOOLLEN GOODS (PRICES).

Sir M. BARLOW: 53.
asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether his attention has been called to the high retail prices of cotton and woollen goods and to the large profits now being made by manufacturers; whether these high retail prices are due mainly to foreign demand; and, if so, whether, as in the case of coal, it is possible, as a temporary measure until more normal times, to reduce the home retail price as compared with the foreign price?

The PARLIAMENTARY SECRETARY to the BOARD of TRADE (Mr. Bridgeman): I have been asked to reply. I am aware of the high retail prices of cotton and woollen goods. The present high prices are mainly due to the high price of raw material and a general increase in the cost oi production, and the foreign demand has probably only a secondary importance. The adoption of the proposal contained in the last part of the question would involve the re-establishment of a large measure of control, and my right hon. Friend is not inclined to recommend such a step. We are, however, at the present time investigating the question of profits in the industries referred to through machinery established under the Profiteering Act, and so soon as we know the facts we shall be in a position to decide what action can usefully be taken.

Sir M. BARLOW: Can the hon. Gentleman give any indication as to when the Report of the Profiteering Committee is likely to be available?

Mr. BRIDGEMAN: I am afraid I cannot.

Mr. BILLING: Will the Committee have access to Coats' dividends later?

Oral Answers to Questions — WOMEN'S CORPS (EDUCATION GRANTS).

Sir M. BARLOW: 55.
asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether, in view of the admirable services rendered by the women forces, he will consider whether
Grants can he made for university and technical education of suitable officers of the Women's Royal Naval Service, of Queen Mary's Women's Army Auxiliary Corps, and of the Women's Royal Air Force, on the same lines as educational Grants are made to officers of the Army, Navy, and Royal Air Forces?

The CHANCELLOR of the EXCHEQUER (Mr. Chamberlain): I would refer my hon. Friend to the answer which I gave yesterday to my hon. and gallant Friend the Member for Durham.

Oral Answers to Questions — WAR STOCK (CONVERSION OF CONSOLS).

Mr. HURD: 57.
asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether he is aware of the sense of injustice felt by ex-soldiers who, owing to their absence abroad on service, were unaware of the right to convert Consols into War Stock, thus suffering both capital and annual loss; and what steps he can take in the matter?

Mr. CHAMBERLAIN: I fear it is quite impossible to allow conversions of Consols into Four and a Half per Cent. War Loan at the present date. Full notice was given in the Press, and every possible step was taken by extensions of time to enable Consols holders abroad to exercise their option to convert.

Mr. HURD: Does that apply to soldiers serving in France who were out of the reach of papers or anything of that kind; and would soldiers serving in France have been likely to be able to see these notices?

Mr. CHAMBERLAIN: The question refers to matters which took place long before I became Chancellor of the Exchequer, but I believe that every effort was made at the time to give serving soldiers notice of their rights. In any case I fear it is too late to reopen the matter.

Oral Answers to Questions — MOTOR CAR LICENCE DUTIES (IRELAND).

Mr. ATKEY: 58.
asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether the sum of £28,799 15s. 2d. levied in 1918 by the county councils in Ireland, under Section 89 of the Finance (909–10) Act, 1910, in respect of Motor Car Licence Duties represents the actual amount, due for that year;
whether the Irish county councils do not strictly enforce the collection of this particular tax; and, if so, what is the cause?

Mr. CHAMBERLAIN: The sum of £28,799 15s. 2d. was collected in respect of the licences issued during the year 1918. It is not possible to state the exact amount of Licence Duty due in respect of any financial year. As regards the remaining part of the question, the county councils in the administration of the Motor Car Duties in Ireland are not subject to the authority, direction, or control of the Treasury, and I have no precise information on the point.

Mr. ATKEY: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that the general opinion in Ireland is that it is quite immaterial whether you pay the tax or whether you do not?

Mr. DEVLIN: Is the hon. Member referring to Wales?

Mr. CHAMBERLAIN: It is Within my knowledge that there have been suggestions that the duty is not collected. I only saw the question this morning, and I have not had time since I saw it to ascertain with whom rest the duties in this matter, or to whose benefit the produce of the duty accrues. I think it is wholly a matter within the discretion of the Irish county councils, and that the Treasury is expressly excluded from any control.

Mr. MOLES: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that every county council in Ireland issues a public return of the amounts collected, and that in at least two cases the return shows a bigger average percentage collected than in any county in England?

Mr. DEVLIN: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that that procedure is not adopted in Wales?

Mr. CHAMBERLAIN: I am not aware of that.

Oral Answers to Questions — INCOME TAX (RELIEF).

Sir R. NEWMAN: 59.
asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether he can take steps to extend the relief provided by Section 27, Sub-section (2) of the Finance Act, 1919, to a woman who has no fixed income beyond what she earns, and being entirely responsible for the upkeep of her home, has a female relative residing with her in the capacity of housekeeper?

Mr. CHAMBERLAIN: I would refer my hon. Friend to the answer, a copy of which I am sending him, which I gave on the 27th ultimo in, reply to a question on this subject by my hon. and learned Friend the Member for York.

Oral Answers to Questions — EXCESS PROFITS DUTY.

Mr. LUNN: 60.
asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether, in view of the considerable advantages derived by companies from the retention of arrears of Excess Profits Duty owing to the delay in adjusting the accounts and appeals, he will take an early opportunity of asking the House to impose interest on outstanding obligations in accordance with his suggestion?

Mr. CHAMBERLAIN: In the cases to which the hon. Member refers, it is the practice of the Commissioners of Inland Revenue to require substantial payments of duty on account where it is evident that liability will arise. Subject to this, I have nothing to add to the reply I made to the hon. Member on the 25th of November.

Mr. LUNN: Does the right hon. Gentleman realise that this means that we are contributing some millions per year of 5 per cent. interest to those companies which have failed to settle their accounts?

Mr. CHAMBERLAIN: If the hon. member will look at the answer which I returned some time ago or even at the earlier statement I made in the course of the Financial Debate, he will see that my attention was directed to this matter before he put any questions on the subject, and that I indicated that if I found there were any unnecessary or improper delays, I might find it necessary to ask Parliament to impose interest.

Oral Answers to Questions — SURVEYOR OF TAXES, ELGIN.

Sir A. WILLIAMSON: 61.
asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer if it is proposed to remove the office of the surveyor and assessor of taxes from Elgin and to station a surveyor at Buckie for the county of Banffshire and another at Inverness for the counties of Moray, Ross, and Cromarty; if the carrying out of such a proposal will cause dissatisfaction locally in view of the fact that Elgin is most conveniently and centrally situated for serving
a wide area between Aberdeen and Inverness; and if the matter will receive further consideration before it is definitely decided to make such a change?

Mr. CHAMBERLAIN: The answer to the first part of the question is in the affirmative. The new arrangements are designed to meet the convenience of the largest number of taxpayers, and it is feared that it will not be practicable to retain a permanent office at Elgin. It is, however, intended to provide for the reasonable requirements of that burgh by arranging for the inspector to give periodical attendances there.

Sir A. WILLIAMSON: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that Elgin is the centre of six railways? The convenience of the inhabitants there is surety worth consideration.

Mr. CHAMBERLAIN: There is a general re-arrangement going on which affects two or three collecting districts, as a result of which the present Elgin district, which comprises the counties of Banff, Elgin, and Nairn, will disappear. Buckie has been selected as the seat of the new district owing to the fact that it is the headquarters of the local fishing industry, and it is the most convenient centre from the point of view of communication for a considerable majority of the taxpayers in the counties. Buckie itself has a population of 9,000, and is much more convenient to the ports of Cullen, Portsoy, and Banff, with a population of nearly 8,000, than is Elgin.

Oral Answers to Questions — CAPTAIN REV. T. J. O'DONNELL: COURT-MARTIAL.

Major MALONE: 66.
asked the Secretary of State for War whether, in view of the finding of the court-martial in the case of Captain O'Donnell, he is prepared to make suitable reparation to that gentleman for the ordeal he had to undergo and for the treatment received before trial; and is he prepared to admonish Lieutenant Chambers for bringing unfounded charges against Captain O'Donnell?

Mr. CHURCHILL: Captain O'Donnell was originally arrested by the military authorities in Ireland on charges which subsequently formed the subject of court-martial proceedings. As he was an Australian officer, the Australian military authorities, in accordance with the usual
practice, took him over from the British military authorities, and from that moment the War Office were not concerned in his disposal. The decision to try him by court-martial was taken by the Australian military authorities. I am not prepared to admit that because a court-martial finds an accused person not guilty of the charge there is a case for reparation. I am aware that there have been suggestions that the arrest and detention of Captain O'Donnell have not been conducted in accordance with the Army Act and Rules of Procedure. I am making inquiry into these suggestions in so far as they relate to the period during which he was in the custody of the British military authorities, but, from the reports now before me, it is clear that his arrest and detention were carried out strictly in accordance with the law. In regard to the latter part of the question, I am not pre-pared to admit that because the proceedings of a court-martial resulted in an acquittal for that reason alone the charges which may have formed the subject of proceedings can be deemed to have been unfounded.

Mr. DEVLIN: When this gallant and reverend gentleman was arrested was he dragged to Dublin, thrown into a cold and dirty cell, surrounded by soldiers with rifles, and treated with the greatest possible indignity before he was tried at all?

Mr. CHURCHILL: I have said that I am inquiring into the facts as to whether the Rules of Procedure under the Army Act were strictly enforced with regard to his treatment.

Captain WEDGWOOD BENN: Do we understand from that answer that the inquiry promised yesterday is also to proceed?

Mr. CHURCHILL: As far as I am aware, the only inquiry consists in asking the various authorities what took place.

Captain BENN: What steps are going to be taken with regard to the witnesses who gave evidence that was proved not to be true?

Mr. CHURCHILL: If witnesses who give evidence in support of charges against parties who are afterwards acquitted of those charges are to be held guilty of some offence in regard to which they themselves are to be held to be the subject of inquiry, it would be perfectly impossible to carry on the administration of justice.

Mr. DEVLIN: Am I to understand from the right hon. Gentleman's answer that, notwithstanding all the indignity and humiliation brought upon this gallant and reverend gentleman for an offence which he never committed, the right hon. Gentleman, who is the custodian of the honour and dignity of the Army, is not ready to repudiate and offer reparation for it?

Mr. CHURCHILL: I do not think I am called upon to do anything except inquire into the conditions under which this officer was arrested, and what happened while he was in charge of the British military authorities. After that, in accordance with the regular practice, he passed under the jurisdiction of the Australian authorities.

Mr. DEVLIN: May I ask the leave of the House to call attention to a definite matter of urgent public importance, namely, the humiliation and indignity placed upon a gallant Australian officer who was proved not guilty by a military tribunal?

Mr. DEVLIN (later): I beg to ask leave to move the Adjournment of the House to call attention to a matter of definite and urgent public importance, namely, the arrest of the Rev. Father O'Donnell of the Australian Forces, and the refusal of the Government after his acquittal to take the necessary steps to deal with those who are responsible for his arrest and subsequent ill-treatment.

Mr. SPEAKER: The hon. Member raised exactly the same question yesterday. I then said that. I thought that until the House was in possession of the facts it would not be proper for me to accept a Motion of this kind. I do not think that to-day matters have advanced any further. Yesterday the Financial Secretary to the War Office announced that he would institute an inquiry. To-day the Secretary of State for War has said that he has instituted the inquiry, and as soon as the results of that inquiry are to hand I shall be quite prepared to consider any Motion which the hon. Member may desire to make.

Mr. DEVLIN: Yesterday the Leader of the House, I think it was, gave me an assurance that this was so important a matter, not only to the Army, but to the great Australian Commonwealth, that the Government could not take any action in the House until they would have a report. Then the right hon. Gentleman, the
Minister for War came to the House this afternoon without notice to me who put the question yesterday and read a long report, a considered statement of the whole case in which he not only gave details of the things themselves, but drew his own conclusions. I take it, therefore, that the report which you considered necessary for presentation to the House before you would allow discussion is contained in the statement which was made by the right hon. Gentleman, and therefore I claim the right, about the last right that is left to any Irishman in this House or elsewhere, for the one, or two, or three Members from Ireland who are still left in this House to have an opportunity not only of discussing this matter, but of erasing this stigma which has been put upon this gallant Australian officer who represents the heroes of our Australian Forces abroad, and I say that it would be, in my judgment, a scandal before the whole world if the House of Commons is not given now an opportunity of dealing with this question.

Mr. CHURCHILL: May I explain—

Mr. SPEAKER: The Secretary of State for War has not had the Report. He has asked for the Report. He has given instructions that it shall be made, and when it is received and he is informed of the particulars involved in this matter, I have no doubt that the right Eon. Gentleman will communicate the facts to the House, and it would then be for the hon. Member and the House to take such action as they think fit.

Captain BENN: On the point of urgency may I submit, in view of the fact that much notice has been taken of this case in Australia, where this officer was very prominent in advocating conscription on Australia entering into the War, and, in view of the impending Australian elections, that it would be well for this House to have an opportunity of expressing its view in order that no misconception should arise in Australia as to the way in which we intend to treat people who come over to fight for us.

Mr. SPEAKER: It may be very desirable that the House should express its views, but before this House can express its views it must know the facts.

Mr. DEVLIN: I must press this point. The right hon. Gentleman did not come
to the House to-day and say that the Report was not forthcoming, but we had his answer.

Mr. CHURCHILL: I am informed as to what took place in this country, but with regard to what took place in Ireland am not informed, because the advices from Ireland have not yet been received.

Captain BENN: Would it not he possible for the right. hon. Gentleman to secure from Ireland a report by telegraph between now and this evening giving all the facts that are material, inasmuch as this gallant officer was arrested and imprisoned for one week at least a month ago?

Mr. SPEAKER: No, because the Whole House would wish to know what the facts are. I cannot grant an Adjournment Motion and then have hon. Members say. We want the facts.

Mr. DEVLIN: I am sorry for pressing this matter, but with all respect it is of sufficient importance. But the facts are known to everybody in the United Kingdom, to whoever reads the newspapers, and I wish to bring these facts before the House. If a Minister has not the facts in his possession now, am I to be told that a matter dealing not only with the personal liberty of a gallant soldier, but the dignity and honour of one of our most powerful Colonies is not to be brought before this House? The right hon. Gentleman tells us that he knows nothing about the facts which are known to everybody in the United Kingdom. and, on the contrary, he says that this thing occurred in Ireland and he is not responsible. The right hon. Gentleman is Minister for War and he is responsible for the Forces in Ireland. [HON. eras "Speech!"]

Mr. CHURCHILL: I cannot take responsibility for the action taken by the War Office authorities in Ireland. I am responsible for the action taken by the War Office here.

Mr. DEVLIN: I am glad to see so contemptuous a repudiation here. I have cables about this matter from Australia, and the whole of Australia wishes the House of Commons to give utterance to some sentiment of resentment at the treatment of an officer, not arrested and humiliated, but arrested, humiliated and acquitted; and if the House of Commons, which can on occasions rise to higher things, allows these things to happen
without repudiation, without reprobation, then you are out to do what everybody believes you are out to do—to drive Ireland into a state of semi-madness and to insult every Irishman.

Mr. SPEAKER: I would remind the hon. Member that he is speaking to a point of Order and that these statements are not relevant to that. If the hon. Gentleman presses me I am prepared to say that the matter is not a "definite matter" until we know the facts, and if it is not a "definite matter" then he is not entitled to break into the ordinary proceedings of the House in order to raise it. As soon as it becomes a "definite matter" and the facts are known then the whole circumstances will be made known to the House and it will be open to him to raise the question.

Mr. DEVLIN: I am much obliged for the courtesy which you have shown me, and I desire to ask only another question from the right hon. Gentleman. I want to know when he will be in a position to give us all the facts so that the House may be in a position to discuss the matter?

Mr. CHURCHILL: I am perfectly ready to discuss this matter. My only desire is to make sure that any case. I make is based upon the latest information that can be obtained from the country where these things took place. I cannot say exactly when this information will be received, but I should think that in the course of the present week I shall be fully informed. If I shall be informed to-morrow, I will let my hon. Friend know, and I will make a statement on the subject by the leave of the House.

Oral Answers to Questions — CASTLE HUNTLEY ESTATE, LONGFORGAN.

Mr. HOGGE: 83.
asked the Secretary for Scotland whether Castle Huntley Estate, Longforgan, comes into the occupation of the Board of Agriculture as from 28th November, 1919; whether the Board of Agriculture receives any money in the form of rent for the twenty holdings on this estate prior to 28th November; whether the buildings and equipment of this holding formed the same for a larger holding prior to the Board's possession; and what sum has been expended by the Board in new buildings or equipment in the constitution of this holding?

The LORD ADVOCATE (Mr. Clyde): The greater portion of the Castle Huntley property, which was acquired at Whitsunday, 1919, came into the Board's occupation at Martinmas. The answer to the second part is in the negative, but the Board receive the half-year's rents to Martinmas from tenants who were in occupation at the date of purchase. If the third part of the question relates to Holding No. 20 (referred to in connection with the hon. Member's questions on the 18th and 26th ultimo), the buildings and equipment formed the greater part of those of a larger farm. The Board have not incurred expenditure for these purposes on this holding.

Mr. HOGGE: Are we to take it that the previous answer was wrong?

Mr. CLYDE: No, Sir.

Oral Answers to Questions — VOLUNTEER STAFFS.

Colonel NEWMAN: 68.
asked the Secretary of State for War whether the 31st October was the date originally fixed for the termination of the services of all volunteer permanent staffs; when is it now proposed that these volunteer staffs should be demobilised; and what is their total weekly cost to the taxpayer?

Mr. CHURCHILL: The 31st October was the date by which General Officers Commanding were originally requested to report that all stores, etc., of each volunteer unit were cleared, and that the unit was ready for disbandment. Considerable difficulty has, however, been experienced in rendering these clearance reports, and it was found, in practice, impossible to adhere to the date mentioned. Every effort has been made to expedite the matter. Clearance reports are now being received daily, and a number of the permanent staffs have already been released. It is hoped that it will be possible to release the remainder during the next six weeks. As fresh releases are now occurring daily, it is not possible to say with any accuracy what is the present weekly cost of the staffs still retained.

Oral Answers to Questions — BARRACK WARDENS.

Mr. R. MCNEILL: 71.
asked the Financial Secretary to the War Office whether an order was issued on the 1st October, 1914, to the effect that non-commissioned officers holding the appointment of barrack
wardens were not to be permitted to reenlist; and, if so, why men whose services as barrack wardens were thus valued and who in consequence were debarred from re-enlistment are now excluded from the benefit of the new scale of pension on the ground that they have not given satisfactory re-enlisted service during the War?

Mr. CHURCHILL: An order was issued in October, 1914, that barrack wardens should not be permitted to reenlist as drill instructors. I regret that I am unable to permit any departure from the terms of the warrant requiring military service during the War as a condition of increase of pension.

Mr. MCNEILL: Does the right hon. Gentleman really think that a body of men who were prevented from enlisting should be deprived of this increased pension because they did not enlist?

Mr. CHURCHILL: They had to qualify for the pension by particular services. If those services have not been rendered I have no power to vary the terms of the warrant.

Oral Answers to Questions — POLICE (RETIREMENT).

Mr. WATERSON: 72.
asked the Secretary of State for the Home Department if men of the police forces who were due to retirement during the War, but owing to the national situation remained with the forces of the Crown, received additional pay for the extra time; and, if so, what amount was granted?

The SECRETARY of STATE for the HOME DEPARTMENT (Mr. Shortt): This was a matter for the different police authorities to decide, and I understand they decided it in different ways. In any case the rates of pay were very generally increased during the War, and the men whose services were retained in the police had therefore the benefit of higher pensions on retirement than if they had been allowed to retire at an earlier date.

Oral Answers to Questions — EXPLOSION (MINNIE PIT, STAFFORDSHIRE).

Colonel WEDGWOOD: 73.
asked the Home Secretary whether his attention has been drawn to the recent inquest held in the circumstances connected with the colliery explosion at the Minnie pit, North Staffordshire, at which it was shown that
explosions of this character could be prevented by the introduction of regulations for the adequate treatment of coal dust by inert dusts; whether the Home Office has decided to hold a special inquiry under the Coal Mines Regulation Act into the circumstances connected with this explosion before the coroner's inquest; in the present circumstances does he intend to still hold such an inquiry; if so, will be give an estimate of the cost which will fall on public funds through the holding of such an inquiry; and will he state when he proposes to introduce the Regulations referred to?

Mr. SHORTT: The answer to the first three parts of this question is in the affirmative. I am advised that while a large part of the ground was covered at the inquest, there are one or two important questions which call for expert investigation, and the proposed special inquiry cannot, therefore, be dispensed with. It is not possible to give an estimate of the cost, but the inquiry is not expected to take more than two or three days. A draft of Regulations dealing with the treatment of coal dust has been prepared, and has been referred for consideration to the Mining Association and the Miners' Federation, and I hope to be able to proceed to the establishment of the Regulations at an early date.

Oral Answers to Questions — REFORMATORY OFFICIALS.

Mr. FORESTIER WALKER: 74.
asked the Home Secretary if he is aware that the Committee appointed by the Home Office has made a recommendation of an increase in the salaries of the officials of reformatories; if so, whether any provisions for increase of Treasury and local authority grants have been made; and whether he is aware that unless such provisions are made that there are no local funds available to carry out the recommendations of the Committee?

Mr. SHORTT: The answer to all three parts of the question is in the affirmative. I would refer the hon. Member to the reply which I gave to the hon. Member for West Houghton on the 28th October, in which I stated that the scheme which the Committee proposes involved a complete review of the financial arrangements by which these schools are supported, and that the whole subject was receiving the immediate consideration of the Treasury
and the Home Office. The new financial arrangements are now completed, and I hope to communicate them in a few days to the local authorities and the managers of the schools.

Oral Answers to Questions — MERCANTILE MARINE.

JOINT INDUSTRIAL COUNCIL.

Lieut. - Commander KENWORTHY: 79.
asked the Parliamentary Secretary to the Shipping Controller whether a Joint Industrial Council for the Mercantile Marine is in process of formation; if so, when it is expected that the first meeting will be held; what will be the nature of its constitution; and whether care will be taken to secure the representation of all seamen's organisations on such council?

Colonel WILSON: There is in process of formation a board or council of employers and employed in the Mercantile Marine, which will supersede the National Maritime Board set up by the Shipping Controller in November, 1917. It is proposed that the first meeting of the new body will take place on the 19th December, when a draft constitution will be submitted for acceptance. The question of representation on that body will be a matter for the board or council to determine.

Oral Answers to Questions — REPATRIATED MUNITION WORKERS, AUSTRALIA.

Mr. JODRELL: 81.
asked the Parliamentary Secretary to the Shipping Controller whether his attention has been called to an article in the Press with regard to the conditions on board the ss. "Bahia Castillo" when employed in carrying repatriated munition workers back to Australia; if these conditions were as stated; and, if so, will he take steps to see that proper accommodation and adequate food is provided in future?

Colonel WILSON: I must apologise for the length of this answer—

HON. MEMBERS: Circulate it.

Colonel WILSON: I will circulate it in the OFFICIAL REPORT.
The following is the Answer:
The "Bahia Castillo" was used for the conveyance of munition workers and their
families to Australia. The families were accommodated as follows:

138 berths in permanent 1st class cabins.
304 berths in temporary cabins specially erected.

The ship was fitted under the supervision of the transport officer at Liverpool and a representative of the Australian Government. The ship was inspected both at Liverpool and at Devonport, and passed as satisfactory, the Report being signed by a commander, R.N., a military inspecting officer, and the senior medical officer. On the arrival of the ship at Cape Town, a complaint was received from the passengers, and instructions were sent to the principal naval transport officer to make full investigations and to remedy legitimate grievances, if any. A reply was received as follows:
Bahia Castillo" inspected in conjunction with Australian staff officer, Durban. Ship found in every way satisfactory, only reasonable complaint was condition of potatoes and lack of vegetables, which was rectified Cape Town before vessel proceeded.
In spite of this, munition workers continued mutinous, and the ship's crew refused to proceed beyond Durban without an armed guard. Seventy-four troops were transferred from the "Bakara," after which the ship proceeded on her voyage. I would point out that since the Armistice over 525,000 Colonial troops and munition workers, and over 65,000 Colonial families, have been repatriated. Among such a large number a certain proportion of complaints was inevitable, but the number of complaints has been exceedingly small in compairson with the numbers handled, and none of the Complaints on investigation have proved to be serious.

Oral Answers to Questions — AMERICAN AND CANADIAN SPIRITS.

Mr. HOGGE: 84.
asked the Food Controller whether the very large quantities of American and Canadian spirits that are being cleared from bond are being sold to the public as such; if not, what steps he proposes to take to prevent the mixing of these spirits with home spirit and the selling of this mixture to the public as Scotch or Irish Whisky; and whether, if he proposes to take no steps, he is prepared to reconsider the price for such a mixture, seeing that the present prices are based on the price of entire Scotch or Irish blends?

Mr. ROBERTS: Considerable quantities of American and Canadian spirits are being sold as such. The question of preventing the adulteration of Scotch or Irish whisky with American or Canadian spirit is being considered; but it is one of considerable technical difficulty.

Mr. HOGGE: When the right hon. Gentleman says a great deal of Canadian and American whisky is being sold as such, what methods have been adopted by those who are selling to indicate to the public that it is American and Canadian raw spirit and is not Scottish or Irish spirit, which is bonded spirit, and on which a special price has been put by the Food Controller?

Mr. ROBERTS: I have had the question under consideration for some time. I am advised that there is no difficulty in distinguishing the American and Canadian supply from Scotch or Irish. I am, however, inquiring into the matter, and hope to be able to make a statement very shortly.

Mr. HOGGE: Will the right hon. Gentleman put some specimens in the tea room in order that we may appreciate this distinction between American, Canadian, Scotch and Irish?

Mr. ROBERTS: I am anxious to secure expert opinion and shall be very glad of the assistance of the hon. Member.

Colonel ASHLEY: What steps are being taken to prevent very immature American spirit being put on the market?

Mr. ROBERTS: I think that is part of the same question. It is being fully gone into, and I hope to make a statement.

Oral Answers to Questions — FOOT-AND-MOUTH DISEASE.

Mr. WILLIAM NICHOLSON: 90.
asked the Parliamentary Secretary to the Board of Agriculture whether, in the case of a valuable pedigree herd of cattle becoming infected with foot-and-mouth disease, the Slaughtering Order of the Board is enforced, or what is the procedure usually followed by the Board in such a case?

Sir A. BOSCAWEN: There is no obligation to slaughter animals affected with foot-and-mouth disease. Slaughter is carried out if considered necessary or desirable with the view of preventing the spread of disease. Where the policy of
slaughter is adopted, the animals to be slaughtered are valued by a competent valuer, and if the owner within fourteen days of the receipt of notice of the valuation does not give a counter notice disputing it, the compensation is paid on the valuation of the animals. The compensation is, in the case of an affected animal, the value before it became affected, and of any other animal, the value immediately before it was slaughtered.

Mr. NICHOLSON: 91.
asked the Parliamentary Secretary to the Board of Agriculture whether any inquiry has been made as to the cause of the outbreaks of foot-and-mouth disease in the Isle of Wight and at Hindhead; and, if so, whether he can state the result of the inquiry?

Sir A. BOSCAWEN: The most exhaustive inquiries have been made with a view to ascertaining the source of the outbreaks referred to, but I regret to inform my hon. and gallant Friend that no evidence has been obtained which throws any light on the matter.

Oral Answers to Questions — COAL PRODUCTION.

STOPPAGE OF SOMERSET COLLIERIES.

Mr. PERCY HURD (by Private Notice): asked the Prime Minister whether he is aware that notices have been posted in some of the Somerset collieries announcing a stoppage next Saturday; whether the cause assigned for this action is that the Government have not found the money to make up the reduction in price, and that the owners are not prepared to carry on the collieries at a heavy loss any longer; and whether he will take steps forthwith to prevent the unemployment and serious dislocation of industry which must follow a cessation of the mines?

Sir AUCKLAND GEDDES: I have been asked to reply: There are colliery-owners who are financially embarrassed to such a degree that even before the reduction in price they were unable to carry on their mines without financial assistance. This I have on more than one occasion indicated to the House. It has been stated by some of these that in view of the extra difficulties due to the reduction price, they propose to give notice to their men and close their mines. I am informed that notices to that effect have been posted in some of the
Somersetshire collieries. When the reduction of price was announced these difficulties were foreseen, and steps have already been taken as suggested in the last part of the question to provide funds to meet financial difficulties resulting from the reduction in price. The Controller is in communication with the colliery referred to.

Oral Answers to Questions — CHESS TOURNAMENT, HOUSE OF COMMONS.

Mr. HOGGE (by Private Notice): asked the Leader of the House, who is responsible for authorising the use of a Committee room of the House of Commons for a chess tournament by a professional player during the discussion of an important land measure for Scotland; whether he is aware that on the last occasion on which Scottish business was discussed the proceedings were interrupted by a river pageant, and whether he is prepared to appeal to those hon. Members who prefer the chess tournament to the discussion of Scottish affairs, to abstain from voting in divisions on subjects of vital importance to Scotland, on which they have not heard the arguments?

Mr. BONAR LAW: I understand, in reply to the first part of the question, that the use of the Committee room was authorised by the Sergeant-at-Arms, at the request of a, Committee of Members of the House. The answer to the second part of the question is in the affirmative. As to the third part, I will give an undertaking, so far as I am personally concerned; but it would not be reasonable in this case alone to ask Members who have not heard the debate to refrain from taking part in Divisions. Let me add this, that the choice of to-day for this exhibition of chess is no mark of disrespect to Scotland, as I am informed that the date was fixed before it was known what the business would be.

Mr. HOGG E: Has my right hon. Friend considered the question of precedent, and is he prepared to assure the House that in regard to amusements this will not create a precedent? This is the first occasion on which this sort of amusement has been permitted.

HON. MEMBERS: No!

Mr. HOGGE: I think so. If a Committee of this House wanted a prize-fight during the hours in which the House was sitting, would they get permission?

Mr. BONAR LAW: I do not think it is right to ask me to answer any hypothetical question, but if the hon. Member wishes to take part in a prize-fight and makes application in the usual way, I am sure it will be considered. I think he is wrong as to precedent. I remember soon after I became a Member of this House taking part in a chess tournament with somebody in America.

Mr. BILLING: May I make a serious appeal to Members of this House to refrain from voting on matters on which they have not heard the arguments. [HON. MEMBERS: "Order !" and "Sit down !"] If it is the fact that many hon. Members are prepared to vote without having listened to the arguments, there is no excuse for wasting the time of the House in having any discussions at, all.

BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE.

Ordered, "That the Proceedings on the Land Settlement (Scotland) Bill be exempted at this day's Sitting from the provisions of the Standing Order (Sittings of the House)."— [Mr. Bonar LAW.]

NURSES REGISTRATION (No. 2) BILL.

Reported, with Amendments [Title amended], from Standing Committee B.

Report to lie upon the Table, and to be printed. [No. 219.]

Minutes of the Proceedings of the Standing Committee to be printed. [No. 219.]

Bill, as amended (in the Standing Committee), to be taken into consideration upon Monday next, and to be printed. [Bill 229.]

MINISTRY OF HEALTH PROVISIONAL ORDERS (No. 1) BILL.

Reported, without Amendment [Provisional Orders confirmed]; Report to lie upon the Table.

Bill to be read the third time To-morrow.

SELECTION (STANDING COM- MITTEES).

STANDING COMMITTEE B.

Sir SAMUEL ROBERTS reported from the Committee of Selection; That they had
discharged the following Member from Standing Committee B (added in respect of the Irish Land (Provision for Sailors and Soldiers) Bill): Captain Loseby.

Report to lie upon the Table.

MESSAGE FROM THE LORDS.

That they have passed a Bill, intituled, "An Act to amend the Law relating to County Courts and to make further provision with respect to the powers of those Courts. [County Courts Bill [Lords.]

COUNTY COURTS BILL [Lords].

Read the first time; to be read a second time upon Monday next, and to be printed. [Bill 230.]

NEW MEMBER SWORN.

Esmond Cecil Harmsworth, esquire, commonly called the Hon. Esmond Cecil Harmsworth, for the County of Kent (Isle of Thanet Division).

Orders of the Day — LAND SETTLEMENT (SCOTLAND) BILL.

As amended (in the Standing Committee) considered.

NEW CLAUSE.—(Amendment of Section Seventeen of Act of 1911.)

Section seventeen of the Act of 1911 (which relates to amendment of law as to vacant holdings) shall be amended by the addition thereto of the following proviso:
Provided further that where a landlord lets a holding otherwise than in compliance with the provisions of this Section, the Board shall be entitled to declare the let null and void and without payment of any compensation to treat the holding as if it had been duly constituted a new holding under this Act, or assign the same for the enlargement of a neighbouring holding or holdings.— [Mr. Munro.]

Brought up, and read the first time.

The SECRETARY for SCOTLAND (Mr. Munro): I beg to move, "That the Clause be read a second time."
This new Clause has been put down following on a discussion which we had upstairs at the instance of my hon. and gallant Friend the Member for Aberdeenshire. It relates to vacant holdings. Section 17 of the Act of 1911, in order to secure that holdings shall not be relet in a different tenancy, provides that the landlord shall intimate the vacancy to the Board, in order that the Board may make new arrangements about the continuation of the tenure. In practice it has been found that such intimation is frequently not given. The Section contains no penalty if the landlord fails to intimate the vacancy. In such a case the Board of Agriculture may be quite unaware of the vacancy. The Land Court makes no order, and the landlord is not disentitled to relet without consent Under those circumstances it is not surprising to learn that, as a matter of fact, the small holdings which have disappeared by merging into farms or otherwise, have been more numerous than the new holdings which have been created under the Small Landholders Act. This new Clause is designed to secure an intimation of the vacancy to the Board in every case. If 'the landlord does not comply with the provisions of Section 17, the Board can declare his letting of the holding to be null and void, and can proceed to deal with it, as if it were a new holding
constituted by the Board, or they may assign it to a neighbouring holder as an enlargement. It is thought that knowledge of these possibilities will ensure notice to the Board at the instance of the landlords of those holdings as they become vacant. That is the object of the Clause. I think it will be effective, and as such I commend it to the House.
Question put, and agreed to.
Clause accordingly read a second time, and added to the Bill.

NEW CLAUSE.—(Amendment of Provisions as to Bequest and Assignment of Holding.)

For the purposes of Section sixteen of the Crofters' Holdings (Scotland) Act, 1886 (which relates to bequest of holdings), and of Section twenty-one of the Act of 1911 (which relates to assignment of holding), the son-in-law of a landholder shall be deemed to be a member of the landholder's family.—[Mr. Munro.]

Brought up, and read the first time.

Mr. MUNRO: The purpose of this new Clause is in order to meet two subsequent Clauses should you, Sir, hold that they are in order. I do not know whether it will be possible now to discuss the question as to whether those two new Clauses are in order or not. (Amendment of Section 21 of Act of 1911 and Interpretation.) My Clause is for the purpose of meeting those new Clauses and it indicates the length the Government are prepared to go. If you should hold that those two new Clauses of which notice has been given by the hon. Member for Aberdeen Central (Major M. Wood) and the hon. Member for the Western Isles (Dr. Murray) are out of order, I should not desire to move this new Clause.

Mr. SPEAKE'R: I am considerable difficulty over this Bill. I am not an expert on land in Scotland, and it is a complicated subject, I must be guided very largely by the opinion of the House on this matter. My own inclination is to say that all Clauses which do not strictly assist land settlement in Scotland are really outside this Bill. That would be my inclination; but it is very hard for me to say, who has no knowledge of these matters, whether some of these Clauses do or do not assist land settlement in Scotland.

Sir G. YOUNGER: I do not know, Sir, whether that ruing meets the point that the right hon. Gentleman raised. There has been a difficulty with regard to the ruling of the Chairman in the Committee upstairs. The Bill is divided into two parts. The
first part is a temporary measure; the second is a permanent alteration of the existing Statute, and is a very serious question, involving drastic proposals. It appears to me that, if it is possible for the Government to bring in a Bill amending that Statute, it is equally possible for any hon. Member—and it is equally right that he should be entitled—to move something either in mitigation or in extension of those proposals. I cannot understand why the Government should have a right which the private Member has not got. This is not a new measure at all; it is an Amendment, as regards the second part, of the existing law, and it is right that we should have our proper privilege.

Mr. MUNRO: I beg to move, "That the Clause be read a second time."
I think its purpose will be quite evident to the House. The effect of the Clause, if it is made part of the Bill, will be to widen in a very important manner the restricted power which the landholder now possesses of bequeathing or assigning his holding. As the law stands, he can bequeath his holding to his wife or to any member of his family. The members of his family include sons, daughters, grandsons or granddaughters, but, curiously enough, do not include a son-in-law. As the House will appreciate, a son-in-law might, in the absence of a son, be the most natural and suitable person to whom the landholder might desire either to assign or bequeath his holding, and in those circumstances we have thought it right to put down this Clause, which would enable the landholder to take that course if and when it seemed to be appropriate.

Major M'KENZIE WOOD: This new Clause mentions two Sections particularly, but these are not the only Sections in the Acts referred to where the word "family" is used. Are we not right in asking that the word "family" shall continue to have the same meaning as it had before in the other Sections which are not referred to here? Take, for instance, Section 8 of the Crofters Holdings Act of 1886, which says that when a crofter renounces his tenancy he shall be entitled to compensation for any permanent improvements, provided that the improvements have been executed or paid for by the crofter or his predecessors in the same family. The word "family" comes up in several other Sections, both in the Crofters Act and in the Act of 1911. Is not the effect of this Clause that the son-in-law shall be entitled to the
tenancy, but will not necessarily be entitled to the improvements that have been carried out on the holding? If that is not so, why should this Clause be made to relate to these two particular Sections and no others? It seems to me that it is quite reasonable to imagine the right split up into two parts, the one being the right to the tenancy of the holding, and the other the right to the improvements that have been carried out, both from the point of view of compensation and of a fair rent when the Land Court comes to decide what is a fair rent. I suggest that the Clause would effect what I believe to be the intention of the Secretary for Scotland if, instead of these two Sections, we put in some such words as "the Landholders Acts," so that there would be no restriction in the application of the Clause, but that it should give the son-in-law not only, the tenancy but the right to all the improvements that have been carried out on the holding.

Mr. MUNRO: My hon. and gallant Friend was good enough to mention to me a little time ago the point which he has just raised, and I have been able to take advice upon the subject. I can assure him that there is no doubt at all that, in the case of assignation or bequest, the landholder would have the right to assign, and could effectively assign, not only his holding but also all the improvements which might have been effected upon it. There is no possibility of dividing the right in the manner which my hon. and gallant Friend suggested. According to the Act of 1886, the holder can only bequeath to one person and there is no doubt that what he would bequeath or assign would be all his rights, whatever they might be.

Major WOOD: Is there any objection to putting in "the Landholders Act"?

Mr. MUNRO: It is quite unnecessary.
Question put, and agreed to.
Clause accordingly read a second time, and added to the Bill.

NEW CLAUSE.—(Amendment of s. 6 of the Act of 1886.)

Section six of the Act of 1886 shall be amended by the insertion, at the end of Subsection (1) thereof, of the following words:
Provided that they shall allow no rent in respect of any improvements made by or at the expense of the tenant or any predecessor in title or in the same family for which he, or his predecessors, as the case may be, has not received payment or fair consideration from the landlord or
his predecessors, nor in respect of the use of any building on the holding (other than an extra dwelling-house used for summer letting) for any subsidiary or auxiliary occupation authorised by this Act, unless the landlord has provided or improved, or contributed to provide or improve, the building for the special purpose of making or aiding the tenant and his family to make such use of it.—[Mr. Graham.]

Brought up, and read the first time.

Mr. SPEAKER: Does this Clause in any way assist land settlement?

Some HON. MEMBERS: Yes.

Mr. GRAHAM: I would respectfully submit, on that point, that the Clause is designed to confer a certain freedom as regards auxiliary or subsidiary occupations. Taking it upon the narrowest possible view as regards this Bill—that is to say, the point of view of ex-Service men—we feel very strongly that these auxiliary occupations should be encouraged, and to that end we desire to move this and one or two other Clauses which stand in my name. I respectfully submit also that this Clause is, in effect, an improvement of Sub-section (2) of Section 10 of the Act of 1911, and, therefore, having regard to the title of the Bill itself, is entitled to be regarded as in order for the purposes of this discussion.
I beg to move, "That the Clause be read a second time."
I may, perhaps, be allowed to indicate to the right hon. Gentleman the Secretary for Scotland the purpose we have in view in placing this Clause again upon the Paper. We desire to select the Clauses which minister, in our opinion, to that freedom in the use of holdings which will be necessary if the ex-Service men, especially, are to succeed in their settlement on the soil in Scotland. This Clause is plain and clear as regards its terms. It proposes that no rent shall be allowed in respect of any improvement which is made by the tenant of a holding for the purpose of carrying on any subsidiary occupation, and at the moment we are narrowing the consideration of the Matter particularly to summer letting. Beyond that, we propose that no hardship shall be inflicted on the landowner, inasmuch as he is protected by getting extra rent if he is responsible for the improvements made; it is confined strictly to the tenant's improvements. I think there is a distinct case for the Clause, even from the point of view of ex-Service men alone. In the Scottish
Courts it has been distinctly laid down that the revenue which might be derived from summer letting is one of the circumstances which fall to be taken into account in determining what is a fair rent. The actual practice, as I understand it, is that during the summer months the smallholder lets either the house on the holding, or a part of it, and goes into residence on some other part of the stealing or elsewhere. This letting of rooms, or of the house, as a summer occupation, is definitely regarded as a part of the income of the smallholders. That falls, under existing circumstances, as we understand it, to be taken into account, and it seems to us to be an unnecessary penalty or burden on the small landholder. As I have indicated, the landowner is placed at no disadvantage by this proposed Clause, because he receives his rent or consideration if he is responsible for any part of the improvement on the holding which makes it possible for the smallholder to follow his summer occupation. On these grounds I venture to think that the Clause might well be incorporated in the Bill.
Beyond these considerations, however, there is a broad and general consideration which we shall reach in a rather more important form later in the Debate, namely, the matter of subsidiary occupations for ex-Service men. According to the views of the authorities on land settlement in Scotland and certainly according to one of the latest booklets which they have published, it is tolerably clear that, in order to be an economic success, there must be the freest opportunity for auxiliary occupations on the holding. I venture to think that the letting of a house or of rooms to accommodate summer visitors might be regarded as an auxiliary occupation, and I am strengthened in that belief by the terms of Sub-section (2) of Section 10 of the Act of 1911, in which these words are used:
Provided always that nothing in the said Sub-section shall be construed as debarring a landholder from subletting his dwelling-house to holiday visitors,
and so on. Clearly and plainly the intention of that Section of the 1911 Act was that the house shall be used freely for this purpose, and our inference from that, whether it be right or wrong, is that the tenant should not be penalised as regards his rent for engaging in that ocupation.

Mr. ADAMSON: I beg to second the Motion.
I think that if we are in earnest in attempting to facilitate the settlement of
ex-Service men on the land, it is necessary for us to provide, as far as we reasonably can, for subsidiary occupations. The one provided for in the Clause under discussion will, in our opinion, go a long way to assisting in settling ex-Service men on the land and providing them with the wherewithal to earn their living. I hope the Seretary for Scotland will see his way to accept this Clause.

The LORD ADVOCATE (Mr. Clyde): The Clause, hon. Members will observe, breaks into two portions. The first portion begins with the word "Provided" and ends with the words "from the landlord or his predecessors." The second part of the Clause begins with the words "Nor in respect of" and is quite distinct from the first. In what I am going to say, I shall deal with these two parts quite separately. With regard to the first part, if that were not already the law, and if that were not already provided for in Section 6 of the Act of 1886, then, so far as I am concerned, I should have no objection, but the whole purpose of Section 6 is to provide for fixing a fair rent, and the whole scheme of this provision is precisely directed to that purpose—and, so far as I am aware, has been uniformly achieved. Section 6 deals with the fixing of the fair rent, and specially directs the Court which fixes it to consider not only all the circumstances of the case, but particularly to take into account the permanent or unexhausted improvements of the holding which have been executed or paid for by the landowner or his prede2 oessors. That is the whole principle on which fair rents have been fixed ever since the Act of 1886, and on which they will continue to be fixed. Therefore, with regard to the first part of the proposed new Clause, there is, I can assure the hon. Member who has moved it, absolutely no reason whatever for putting it into the Bill. It adds nothing—not one single jot or tittle—to what the law is already.
I now deal with the second part of the Clause, and here I hope the hon. Member will pardon me if I say I am in some little difficulty in understanding the words which he uses. He says that there is to be no rent chargeable
in respect of the use of any building—not dwelling-house necessarily—on the holding (other than an extra dwelling-house used for summer letting) for any subsidiary or auxiliary occupation authorised by this Act, unless the landlord has provided or improved, or contributed to provide or improve, the building for the special purpose of making or aiding the tenant and his family to make use of it.
The Arran case, to which allusion was made, was precisely the case of extra dwelling-houses. In that case there had been encouragement given—undoubtedly there are many benefits attached to the island—to the putting up not only of one but sometimes as many as four dwelling-houses on a holding, and these were in all cases, except one, for the purpose of summer letting. The question arose in that case, first, could the sites of these extra dwelling-houses be treated as part of the holding? If they were to be treated as part of the holding, could you reasonably disregard as one of the circumstances of the holding itself that it was, in fact, used for non-agricultural purpose's to a considerable extent, namely, for summer letting? The Court inclined to the view that it was one of the circumstances that ought to be taken into account. The Clause leaves the case of extra or additional dwelling-houses, over and above the one appropriated for the holding, untouched. Then it says, that no rent is to be charged in respect of the use of any building on the holding for any subsidiary or auxiliary occupation, and so on. I confess I am quite unable to realise what mischief this is intended to remedy. I am sure the hon. Gentleman does not mean a building which is not a dwelling-houses at all but is used for summer parties. No one, of course, would desire to do that, I am sure. It is something else. With regard to the words "subsidiary or auxiliary occupation," which, as he says, are in Sub-section (1) of Section 10 of the Act of 1911, the landholder is entitled to make use of the holding
for subsidiary or auxiliary occupations as in case of dispute the Land Court may find to be reasonable and not inconsistent with the cultivation of the holding.
I will be perfectly frank. I know of no case in which any difficulty has arisen in respect of a building used for some such subsidiary or auxiliary purpose. If there is any mischief to be remedied here, I am sure my hon. Friend will make it plain. But this I can say, that, in regard to the object which I think he expressed in the remarks which he made commendatory of this Clause, I think I can give him the assurance that there will be no case in which remedy is required. Therefore, if I understand the second part of the Clause as clearly as I am sure I understand the first part, I can say there is no need for this Amendment at all. With regard to the first part, no rent is charged now on
tenants' improvements or those of his predecessors. With regard to such, I know of no mischief that calls to be remedied, leaving out of view altogether the extra dwelling-houses, as the hon. Member does in his Clause, quite rightly. Therefore I am afraid that, unless there is something I have failed to realise, we could not, because we ought not to, overload the Bill with words that are unnecessary.

Mr. HOGGE: The Lord Advocate has made a very reasonable speech, as he always does in trying to meet Amendments. Section 10, Sub-section (1) of the Act of 1911 says
The landholder shall, by himself or his family, with or without hired labour, cultivate his holding, without prejudice to the right (which is hereby conferred upon him) to make such use thereof for subsidiary or auxiliary occupations as in case of dispute the Land Court may find to be reasonable and not inconsistent with the cultivation of the holding: Provided that the expression 'cultivate' in this Sub-section shall include the use of a holding for horticulture or for ally purpose of husbandry, inclusive of the keeping or breeding of live stock, poultry, or bees, and the growth of fruit, vegetables, and the like.
Might I suggest to my right hon. Friend that what my hon. Friend the Member for Central Edinburgh (Mr. W. Graham) had in his mind, as many others have in their minds, is that these subsidiary and auxiliary occupations may not necessarily come within the definition of this word "cultivate." Let me take a specific, case. Supposing a discharged or demobilised soldier has been trained, say, in boot-making, and he is a native of one of these Scottish counties and he gets a small holding, and, in addition to cultivating his small holding, he makes use of one of the buildings for the purpose of repairing boots of the adjoining village—a cobbler's shop. That, of course, would grow as his business grew. My hon. Friend does not want that man to be penalised in a small holding by having any tax or rate put upon him because that building is used for the purpose of bootmaking. That is the point he has in mind.

Mr. CLYDE: I really think I can clear away the misconception. If the hon. Member will oblige me by looking at the Act, he will see that there is an obligation by Sub-section (1) of Section 10 put upon the landholder to cultivate his holding, and cultivation, as he has very properly pointed out, includes things which reasonably come within that category, but that obligation is without prejudice to the right to use the holding for such sub-
sidiary occupations as the Land Court may allow. The cobbler's shop is exactly such an instance. It has nothing to do with cultivation. I do not suppose any of us need be afraid that the Land Court would say nay to the cobbler's shop or anything a great deal more extensive than that, so that the hon. Member need be under no anxiety about the limiting effect of the description "cultivate." In the case which the hon. Member quoted, where a building is used for the purpose of cobbling, that, of course, under the rent Clause should never form a ground for renting it in respect of the cobbling business. The rent is simply for the holding as before, and there is no case on record in which the Land Court, in fixing the fair rent, has ever dreamt of taking into account such a subsidiary occupation as that which the hon. Member suggests. I venture to think there is nothing in this new Clause which is not fully covered by the law as it stands.
Question, "That the Clause be read a second time," put, and negatived.

NEW CLAUSE.—Amendment of s. 26 (3, a) of the Act of 1911.)

Section twenty-six of the Act of 1911 shall be amended to the following extent and effect:
(1) Throughout the paragraph (a) of Sub-section (3) the words "one hundred "shall be substituted for the word "fifty."— [Major M'Kenzie Wood.]

Brought up, and read the first time.

5.0 P.M.

Major M'KENZIE WOOD: I beg to move "That the Clause be read a second time."
The effect of this, if carried, will be to enlarge the maximum size of small holdings. At the present time no small holdings may exceed fifty acres in extent, or a rental of over £50—that is to say, a small holding may have an acreage of fifty and a rental of £500, and on the other hand it may have a rental of £50 and an acreage of any number. The proposal here is that this double limit should be extended in the case of the acreage to 100 acres, and in the case of the rental to £100. Everyone who represents an agricultural constituency in Scotland, particularly in the North, has been face to face with a demand for the extension of the size of small holdings. This demand seems to me due to the fact that under present circumstances it has been found that very often, unless these smallholders have subsidary occupations, the size of the small holdings is not sufficient to give them a decent living in return for honest
work. It is suggested that if the size of the holdings was increased as indicated in this Amendment that we would be able to establish a number of economic holdings which would give the tenants a proper living, and at the same time would take into the Bill a number of farms—particularly one-pair horse farms, which are as much entitled to the benefits of the Act of 1911 as these which have got it.
After all what is the principle which should determine the size of the smallholder and what the farm? What principle should determine when a small holding should become a farm? It seems to me that a holding is a holding which is worked by the holder himself, and it becomes a farm when the tenant becomes a sort of capitalist, and really only a director of labour. Everyone will admit, I think, that a holder can, by his own work, attend to much more than a holding of fifty acres. Another point is that the value of money has altered very considerably in the last year or two, and if £50 was the proper financial and rent limit some years ago it must of necessity be a hopelessly bad limit to-day. Arising out of that, another point is that on account of the change in the value of money very many holdings which are at present rented at slightly under £50 are bound to be raised, in course of time, beyond the £50 limit; therefore, they will automatically fall out of the operation of the Act of 1911. This is really not, as it might seem to some people, an attack upon the rights of the landlord, because it may, in some instances, relieve the landlord of the great obligation resting upon him at present, is likely to become heavier in the near future, and, at any rate, is much heavier to-day than some time ago; because these farms, which are just beyond the limit, have naturally their buildings kept up at the present time by the landlord. This is a very much heavier duty to-day than some years ago. If this extension of limit is carried it will relieve the landlord of that, and throw upon the tenant the necessity of keeping the buildings up to a proper state of repair.
It is very difficult at the present time to get landlords to do this, and it is very difficult for landlords to do it. We would be able much quicker to get improvements of that kind carried out if the duty were thrown upon the tenant. Most of the points, I think, of this matter have already been brought to the notice of the
Scottish Members. I am sorry this question should be discussed for the first time here without having previously been discussed in Committee upstairs, because English Members particularly are entitled to ask for some guidance from Scottish Members as a whole. As a result of what took place in Committee upstairs they have not that guidance. I believe if this and some other Amendments of a similar nature had been put to the Scottish Committee they would have been carried. I think they have much less chance of being carried here if the Government throw their weight into the scales against us. I hope they will not do that. I hope the Government will see that this is a case where some Amendment of the law is urgently necessary, and that they will be able to do something to meet really an urgent difficulty.

Lieut.-Colonel MURRAY: I beg to second the Motion.
As this matter was not discussed in Committee I am very glad the hon. and gallant Gentleman has brought it forward to-day. Personally, I have always been in favour of extending the limit of the acreage and the rental since the original Act was passed. I have given expression to that view in this House, and in the constituencies. The number of fifty was chosen for really arbitrary reasons. In view of present conditions I hope the Government will be able to see their way to accept the Amendment. The Mover referred to the general rise in prices and the possibility of rents being raised. In the event of rents being raised the holding now within the ambit of the Act of 1911 will automatically drop out. If this Clause be adopted that difficulty will be overcome, and those holding would still be within the operation of the Act. I hope the Government are going to give this matter their very earnest consideration and accept the Clause put on the Paper. It is within their cognisance that there is a very considerable number of small holdings in Scotland of the size referred to, and those concerned very earnestly desire that some such Clause as this should be put into the Act.

Mr. MUNRO: I have listened with great care to the two speeches delivered, and I sincerely hope that after due reconsideration of the matter my hon. Friends will not press this Amendment. It really introduces a most sweeping change into the law as it stands to-day. It expounds a totally new principle, and it opens up a
vista of discussion not only on this, but on subsequent Amendments, which rather terrifies me when I think of the time at our disposal. Honestly, in my judgment, this new Clause so far from facilitating the land settlement which is the purpose of this Bill, would abridge its operation. The fact is there is not enough land to go round. Hon. Members are telling me of the number of applicants for new holdings. Without any doubt the acceptance of this Amendment would mean halving the divisibility of purchased land, and would diminish by half the number of smallholders that it would be possible to settle upon the land. Does the House really desire that? To place these men in a position to compete, and successfully, with existing economic small farms is a position in which I do not think we desire to put them. Those in favour of small holdings—I emphasise the word "holdings" as understood to-day—could not possibly be in favour of this Amendment of this Clause, which would not be in favour of small holdings, but rather in favour of larger holdings. The effect of the Clause would be this: that every man who since 1911 has been upon his farm of 50 or 100 acres would immediately and automatically, by reason of the acceptance of this Amendment, come under what is colloquially called the Pentland Scheme. Apart from that consideration altogether, I venture to place my opposition to this Amendment upon the consideration which I have mentioned already—that to accept it would be to divide in half the number of smallholders whom we hope to settle, and I am quite sure that neither of my hon. Friends would desire that.

Major WOOD: Is the right hon. and learned Gentleman, prepared to allow these to drop out of the Act?

Mr. MUNRO: I am not quite sure what my hon. and gallant Friend means by dropping out—certainly not, so far as I am concerned.

Major WOOD: I said if the rent roll in some cases was brought up to over £50 it is very likely, in view of the price of money, that the holding will fall out of the Act. Are the Government prepared to see that?

Mr. MUNRO: It is quite impossible for the holding to drop out of the Act. Once a holding is in, it is there for ever. It cannot by any conceivable possibility drop out.

Sir G. YOUNGER: Hon. Gentlemen who put these Amendments on the Paper have really sometimes little realisation as to the extent which they may change the existing law. This, if carried, would mean, as my right hon. Friend the Secretary for Scotland says, an extension of what is called the Pentland Tenure all over Scotland, and, in point of fact, the croftorisation of many farms in the southern part of Scotland, of every penny spent on the buildings by the landlord, who at present retains control—as he ought to do—where in cases of a smaller rent than £50 the original Act provides for a tenancy which is called a statutory small holding tenancy. That is all wiped out by this Amendment, which, instead of facilitating the settlement of ex-soldiers on small holdings, will go a long way towards keeping them off. For these reasons, I am glad the Secretary for Scotland does not propose to accept this Amendment.

Mr. GARDINER: If I thought for a single moment that this Clause would increase the difficulty of the settlement of these men on small holdings I would not support it. We have had an inquiry into this question in Scotland by men whom the agriculturists can trust, and the result of that inquiry was a recommendation in favour of the enlargement of holdings. Although it is made possible by this proposal that a holding may be at a rent of £100, that does not follow that all the holdings are going to be of the same size. Some of them would be smaller, with special circumstances attached. You may have small holdings adjacent to a town with intensive cultivation, and there they may be doing very well, while in other cases it might prove impossible to conduct business on a satisfactory basis. If you can have holdings of a sufficient size there is nowhere in the whole world which would be such an ideal place to occupy, and we should get results which I am sure would justify the enlargement of holdings. I am sorry that the Secretary for Scotland, who is absolutely sympathetic towards everything that is desirable in public agricultural interests in Scotland, does not see his way to accept this proposal which I put forward.

Major MCMICKING: In the past the tendency in Scotland has been that, owing to causes that we all know, the landlords find the money to equip the holdings and buildings, with the result that small farms have become absorbed by larger farms.
In the case of hill farms it is necessary that they should have some place to send their lambs in the winter, but there are many districts where, in recent years, large farms are held by one farmer, and the tendency has been, when small farms come into the market, owing to the difficulty of keeping up the equipment and the buildings, for them to be taken over by the large farmers. This Amendment would safeguard small farms. We want the small farm, the medium-sized farm, and the large farm. This Amendment would give security to those occupiers, who would become statutory small tenants. [HON. MEMBERS: "No!"] I believe they would, and in the lowlands this would mean more statutory small tenants.

Mr. MUNRO: The hon. Member says that if he did not think this Amendment would constitute them small tenants he would not support it, and I can assure him that it would not. That is a class fixed in 1912, and it certainly cannot be enlarged now.

Major MIMICKING: I have been speaking under a misapprehension. I was told yesterday that they would be crofters, and I cannot support this new Clause after that explanation. I do hope, however, that the Secretary for Scotland will give his assistance to the formation of small farms.

Mr. HOGGE: I do not understand what is meant by the crofterisation of the farms in the South of Scotland. Surely they would retain the tenure under which they at present exist. I should like to know what the reply is to this point. The real point of the Amendment, which has not been met in the Debate, is the altered values both in money and the price of land, and, if the old restrictions are still allowed to obtain, obviously that would militate against my right hon. Friend's scheme just as much as the other, and he would not be able to purchase enough land. He says that there is only a limited amount of money to purchase land. At present values the amount of land would be very much smaller than was previously contemplated. It has been suggested that my right hon. Friend will not be able to settle the men we want to settle on the land in Scotland. I frankly confess that I am not impressed by that argument. I have watched the process of settling ex-soldiers on the land in Scotland. It is now fourteen months
since the Armistice, and a fortnight ago, in reply to a question, 1 got the name and address of one ex-Service man in Scotland who had actually been settled on the land under conditions. This afternoon the Lord Advocate climbed down from some of those conditions. If he will look at the original question, he will find the previous answer I got does not tally with the answer I got this afternoon. I know the Secretary for Scotland said he had another 100 names in his pocket, but I say without much fear of contradiction that not more than 100 ex-Service men have been settled on the land up to the present moment.

Mr. MUNRO: It has been difficult to settle ex-Service men on the laud before the passing of this Bill; but if this measure does pass, under the compulsory powers of purchase the rate of settlement will be infinitely faster.

Mr. HOGGE: I am not opposing this measure—in fact, I am trying to make it a little better. I agree if the right hon. Gentleman gets compulsory powers, the rate of settlement of ex-soldiers will be very much expedited. We all know what happened under the old Act, and we know how many have been settled. I do not want hon. Members to imagine that in this matter miracles are going to happen in Scotland unless we reject this Amendment. It is perfect nonsense to say that it will make all this difference in the settlement of ex-Service men. The point has not been made about the depreciated value of money. There are scattered all about exceptionally advantageous cases in which it would be an advantage to have the elasticity provided by this proposal in the administration of the law. The hon. Baronet opposite always wants to protect the landlords in Scotland.

Sir G. YOUNGER: No, I only want to do what is just and fair, and the hon. Gentleman has no right to say that.

Mr. HOGGE: Yes; justice and fairness is protection, and therefore I repeat that he always wants to protect the landlords. We may have a different interpretation as to what is just and fair.

Sir G. YOUNGER: We may have a different interpretation of courtesy.

Mr. HOGGE: I know that, or my hon. Friend would not interrupt me so often. Unless we get a more satisfactory answer on this proposal we must take it to a Division.

Mr. JOHNSTONE: I think the elasticity provided by this proposal would be a most desirable thing. I am not afraid of the crofterisation of the lowlands of Scotland, because I think it would be a very good thing to have the advantage of the Crofters Act. I do not think the House should be terrified by the idea if the limitation of the rent from £50 to £100 is raised, and the acreage from fifty to a hundred acres, because there is much need for the acreage being increased. Many a man has been condemned to labour on a farm which has not adequately supported him and his family. Agriculturists have spoken to me often, and have said that it is almost impossible for a man to make a living out of a farm unless he can engage two horses. I do, therefore, think that good reasons have been urged for the new Clause, and I am sorry that my right hon. Friend, who no doubt is labouring under certain has not been able to accept it.

Mr. W. GRAHAM: I wish, very briefly, to quote one or two remarks in the official publications of the Board of Agriculture for Scotland in this connection. The hon. Baronet the Member for Ayr Burghs (Sir G. Younger) intimated that some of us on this side of the House had put Amendments upon the Paper without perhaps appreciating where exactly they would lead us in land settlement in Scotland. It is quite true that some of us have the honour to represent eonstituencies from which green grass has long since disappeared, but I hope that we have still the power to read these official publications and to use them intelligently in a debate of this kind. The right hon. Gentleman, in opposing this proposal, suggested that we should defeat the object that we have in view in this Bill, and that we should render it more difficult to achieve the settlement of ex-Service men and others on the land of Scotland. If I thought that would be the result of our proposal, I should certainly support the Government's attitude, but I strongly contend that the very reverse is indicated, not by anything that may be said from these benches, but in the official documents of the Board of Agriculture for Scotland and in the Report of Mr. Conacher and Professor Scott, which has just been supplied to Scottish Members. The Board of Agriculture for Scotland, in its Report for 1918, said that the demand for small-holdings in Scotland continued
to be real and pressing, and immediately afterwards it pointed out that even under the greatly accelerated system it would take many years to exhaust either the demand or the land available. These are the definite statements by the Board of Agriculture for Scotland on the particular question now under discussion. I am very much exercised with regard to the economic success of these holdings in Scotland, and the right hon. Gentleman is familiar with the tendency over the whole of Europe with reference to the use of land and to the establishment of men: on a limited number of acres. The Report of Mr. Conacher and Professor Scott points unmistakably to the fact that we are reaching a stage when these holdings must be larger than in the past if we are going to give a man a chance of a healthy and reasonable life at all. I venture to submit to the Government, therefore, that in. their own official reports they get the very strongest support for this Amendment. I desire to emphasise the point of elasticity which has been mentioned by other hon. Members. Nothing rigid is proposed in this Clause. We only say that we must go beyond the 50-acre limit, and we say that, not on the ground of our own political faith at all, but on the considered opinion of men who are undeniably experts in this matter.

Major W. MURRAY: An hon. Member has said that he has some difficulty in understanding what is meant by the crofterisation of Scotland. If the crofter tenure were applied, as it would be applied, under this Amendment to the rest of Scotland, it would simply mean the ruin of agriculture in that country, because it would prevent, in future, the application of the landlord's capital to the land over hundreds of thousands of acres.

Mr. HOGGE: No.

Major MURRAY: That would be the-result of this Amendment.

Mr. HOGGE: No.

Major MURRAY: I should like to be contradicted in facts. This Amendment asks for farms up to 100 acres under the crofter tenure.

Mr. HOGGE: No.

Major MURRAY: There is no doubt that the crofter tenure absolutely bars the landlord's capital from getting to the land.
There is no doubt, therefore, that on agricultural grounds it would be a sin to impose it.

Dr. MURRAY: I rise to give a modified support to this Clause. I agree with it in principle, and I see no reason why it should not be carried. I believe it would be of some use in many parts of Scotland where there is plenty of land to be distributed among aspiring smallholders, and in that sense I do not see why the Secretary for Scotland should not adopt it; but, as a matter of fact, I should like to see a good deal more elasticity with regard to the size of the holding. Of course, the Clause gives discretion to the Board of Agriculture, and there are certain parts of Scotland where they would never be so mad as to apply this limit, such as certain crating areas in the Highlands, and especially in the Western Isles and on the West Coast of Scotland, where, in many parts, there is not sufficient arable land to be divided. I have never looked upon my own Constituency, however, as the whole of Scotland, although I attach a great deal of importance to it, and from what I have learned from other Members, I believe that the provision would be useful. There is one part of my Constituency which is protected by Section 27 of the Act of 1911, where the Island of Lewis, so far as it lies within the county of Ross and Cromarty—it all lies within the county of Ross and Cromarty—is especially excluded from this portion of the Act simply because it is an island and the land is limited. If this Clause were intended to be absolutely compulsory, I would not support it, but I have sufficient faith in the good sense of the Board of Agriculture—they have very often shown good sense in our parts—to believe that they would not apply it in those parts where it was not suitable, and where there was not sufficient land. Seeing that protection is afforded by Section 27 of the Act of 1911, and also by the common sense of the Board of Agriculture in those cases where the Amendment is not suitable, I am inclined to support the general principle of this Clause.

Mr. H. HOPE: The primary object of this Bill is to settle ex-Service men upon the land. We know that with the very high cost of stocking at the present time it is going to take a very large amount of capital indeed to stock even a 50-acrefarm. If we are going to provide machinery for those holdings even up to
100 acres, are we not going to make the position such that a man will require far more capital than he is likely to have The Secretary for Scotland has told us that, of course, there would not be sufficient land to go round if we increased this up to 100 acres. I entirely agree with him. If we make the holdings 100 acres instead of 50 acres, we cannot make as many, and the Secretary for Scotland is therefore doing a wise thing in moving cautiously. If an ex-Service man can provide as much capital as he wants for 50 acres he is doing very well indeed. Afterwards, perhaps, he may be able to move on to a larger holding. The first practical step in settling men on the land is to make the holdings of such a. size that they can really equip them well, instead of making them of such a size that they would be overloaded by not having sufficient capital to manage them.

Lieut.-Commander WILLIAMS: It is with very great reluctance that I intervene in this Debate, and the only consolation that I have is that so many Scotsmen have already spoken on the subject that there cannot be very many left to attack me afterwards. The hon. Member for East Edinburgh (Mr. Hogge) made a great deal of altered money values. Although the values of money may go up and down, the amount of land in Scotland on which it is worth settling people is very limited indeed. I dare say the hon. Gentleman, if he talked long enough, might be able to extend the whole area of Scotland, but I very much doubt if he would do it in our lifetime. I, therefore, think that the Secretary for Scotland is absolutely right in pointing out that the main object of this Bill is to settle the largest possible number of people on the land. You will have to come later to a Grant, and that will be looked at very closely from the point of view of a great many people other than Scottish Members. It is advisable. in considering this Clause, to realise quite clearly what we want to arrive at, which is to get the largest number of settlers, and for that reason, if for no other, I would like to urge the House definitely to stick to the old figure of fifty, which is generally accepted as applying to small holdings in other places as well as Scotland. if you alter it in one place. you will probably be bound, sooner or later. to alter it in another. For that reason, if for no other, I personally shall stand by the Government.

Mr. ADAMSON: Members who have spoken of the Clause standing in the name of my hon. Friends and myself seem to be of the opinion that what we are proposing to do is to provide lot a minimum of 100 acres of land. That is not the object at all. The object is simply to provide for greater elasticity and for raising the variations in. the sizes of the holdings from, say, 3 or 5 acres up to 100 acres, instead of up to 50 acres as provided for in the Bill introduced by the Secretary for Scotland. The success of all holdings depends very much on climate, soil and locality. There are some very small holdings in Scotland which have been worked very successfully by the holders, and I have in my possession at the moment a balance-sheet for fifteen years of one whose holding never exceeded during that time 3¼ acres. The amount of produce he was able to raise on his holding has risen from £49 in the first year to £637 in the fifteenth year. In that instance, of course, the soil was very favourable and the locality was even more favourable. There are parts of the country where intensive culture is possible, and there are other parts where it would be very difficult to apply it. Where the holder is entirely confined to growing ordinary agricultural crops it is very difficult for him to earn a living on a small holding, and I think the Secretary for Scotland would be well advised to accept this Amendment which provides for greater elasticity. The applications for holdings must come before the Board which, in view of all the circumstances, will decide upon their size, and I do not think there is any danger to the success of this Bill contained in this Amendment. hope, therefore, that even yet the right hon. Gentleman will see his way to accept it.

Mr. MUNRO: May I make an appeal to the Horse to come to a conclusion on this important matter as soon as possible? I quite agree with my right hon. Friend that this proposal is not for a minimum but for a maximum. But I hope my right hon. Friend will appreciate that if we once put a maximum into the Bill pressure will be

brought to bear on the Board from various quarters for holdings approximating to that maximum, and therefore the pressure in this case will be for holdings of 100 acres instead of 50. That pressure will probably have to be acceded to, and it follows that if you increase the maximum you will inevitably diminish the number of men you can settle on the land; to that extent therefore if you give effect to the Clause at all you will decrease the number of ex-Service men whom you will be able to settle on the land. I am not surprised to find that my hon. Friend the Member for the Western Isles expressed willingness to support this proposal so long as it is not applied to his own constituency. I think that probably the hon. Member for Caithness may take up the same attitude. Knowing the number of holders waiting to be accommodated he will appreciate that if this extension is agreed to it will be impossible to give the necessary land to a large number of holders. [The HON. MEMBER dissented.] Well, my hon. Friend is custodian of his own interests, but I certainly would have thought that in a constituency of the kind he represents, where there are large numbers of persons waiting to be settled on the land, he would have desired to give the fullest opportunity for such settlement. We have another forcible argument against this Amendment. If its object were to deal with holdings to be created in the future, there might he: more to be said in its favour, but the effect of this Amendment will be to bring into the Bill automatically, existing small holdings between 50 and 100 acres in Scotland to-day and that would be a very large order indeed. I would very respectfully ask the House to pause before giving effect to an Amendment whose consequences would be so sweeping, and, in my humble judgment, so detrimental to the settlement of the large number of men we have in contemplation to provide for.

Question put, "That the Clause he read a second time."

The House divided: Ayes, 79; Noes, 249.

Division No. 141.]
AYES.
[5.56 p.m.


Acland, Rt. lion Francis Dyke
Carter, W. (Mansfield)
Galbraith, Samuel


Adamson, Rt. Hon. William
Clynes, Rt. Hon. John R.
Gardiner, J. (Perth)


Barnes, Majer H. (Newcastle, E.)
Cowan, D. M. (Scottish University)
Glanville, Harold James


Barrie, Charles Coupar (Banff)
Cowan, Sir H. (Aberdeen and Kinc.)
Graham, D. M. (Hamilton.)


Bell, James (Ormskirk)
Daiziel, Rt. Han. Sir J. H. (Kirk'dy)
Griffiths, T. (Pontypool)


Benn, Captain W, (Leith)
Davies, Alfred (Clitheroe)
Grundy. T. W.


Brace, Rt. Hon. William
Davison, J. E. (Smethwick)
Guest, J. (Hemsworth, York).


Brameden, Sir T.
Edwards, C. (Bedwellty)
Hall, P. (Yorks, Normanton)


Brown, J. (Ayr and Bute)
Edwards, Majer J. (Aboraven)
Hallas, E.


Cairns, John
Edwards, J. H. (Glam., Neath)
Hancock, John George


Harmsworth, Sir R. L. (Caithness-shire)
Murray, Lt.-Col. Hon, A. C. (Aberdeen)
Swan, J. E. C.


Hartshorn, V.
Newbould, A. E.
Taylor, J. (Dumbarton)


Henderson, Rt. Hon. Arthur
Parkinson, John Allen (Wigan)
Thomson, T. (Middlesbrough, W.)


Hinds, John
Rae. H. Norman
Thorne, G. R. (Wolverhampton)


Hirst, G. H.
Rattan, Peter Wilson
Thorne, W. (Plaistow)


Hodge, Rt. Hon. John
Rees, Captain J. Tudor (Barnstaple)
Tootill, Robert


Hegge, J. M.
Richardson, Sir Albion (Peckham)
Wallace, J.


Irving, Dan
Richardson, R. (Houghton)
Walsh, S. (Ince, Lancs.)


Johnstone, J.
Roberts, F. O. (W. Bromwich)
Waterson, A. E.


Jones, Henry Haydn (Merioneth)
Rodger, A. K.
Wignall, James


Jones, J. (Silvertown)
Rose, Frank H.
Williams, A. (Consett, Durham)


Kenyon, Barnet
Rowlands, James
Williamson, Rt. Hon. Sir Archibald


Lawson. John
Scott, A. M. (Glas., Bridgeton)
Winfrey, Sir Richard


Lunn, William
Shaw, Hon. A. (Kilmarnock)
Young, William (Perth and Kinross)


Macdonald, Rt. Hon. J. M. (Stirling)
Short, A. (Wednesbury)



Maclean, Neil (Glasgow, Govan)
Sitch, C. H.
TELLERS FOR THE AYES.— Major


Maclean, Rt. Hon. Sir D. (Midlothian)
Smith, W, (Wellingborough)
McKenzie Wood and Mr. W. Graham.


Matthews, David




NOES.


Adair, Rear-Admiral
Dockrell, Sir M.
Knight, Captain E, A.


Addison, Fit. Hon. Dr. Christopher
Doyle, N. Grattan
Knights, Captain H.


Agg-Gardner, Sir James Tynte
Duncannan, Viscount
Law, A. J. (Rochdale)


Ainsworth, Captain C.
Elliot, Captain W. E. (Lanark)
Law, Rt, Hon. A. Bonar (Glasgow)


Alien, Colonel William James
Eyres-Monsell, Commander
Lewis, Rt. Hon. J. H. (Univ., Wales)


Ashley, Col. Wilfred W.
Falcon, Caplain M.
Lewis, T. A. (Pontypridd, Glam.)


Astor, Viscountess
Falie, Major Sir Bertram Godfray
Lindsay, William Arthur


Alkey, A. R.
Fisher, Rt. Hon. Herbert A. L.
Lloyd, George Butler


Bagley, Captain E. A.
FitzRoy, Captain Hon. Edward A.
Locker-Lampson, G. (Wood Green)


Baird, John Lawrence
Flannery, Sir J. Fortescue
Locker-Lampson, Com. O. (Hunt'don)


'Baidwin, Stanley
Foreman, H.
Long, Rt. Hon. Walter


Balfour, George (Hampstead)
Forrest, W.
Lonsdale, James R.


Barnett, Major Richard W.
Foxcroft, Captain C.
Lorden, John William


Barnston, Major H.
Fraser, Major Sir Keith
Lyle-Samuel, A. (Eye, E. Suffolk)


Barrand, A. R.
Ganzoni, Captain F. C.
M'Donald, Dr. B. F. P. (Wallasey)


Beauchamp, Sir Edward
Gardner, E. (Barks, Windsor)
M'Laren, R. (Lanark, N.)


Beckett, Han. Gervase
Geddes, Rt. Hon. Sir A. C. (Bas'gst'ke)
M'Lean, Lt.-Col, C. W. W. (Brigg)


Bell, Lt.-Col. W. C. H. (Devizes)
Gibbs, Colonel John Abraham
Macmaster, Donald


Bann, Corn, Ian Hamilton (Greenwich)
Gilbert, James Daniel
McMicking, Major Gilbert


Betterton, H. B.
Gilmour, Lieut.-Colonel John
Macnamara, Rt Hon. Dr. T. J.


Birchall, Major J. D.
Glyn, Major R.
McNeill, Ronald (Canterbury)


Borwick, Major G. O.
Goff, Sir R. Park
Macpherson, Rt. Hon. James I.


Boscawen, Sir Arthur Griffith-
Grant, James Augustus
Macquisten, F. A.


Bowyer, Captain G. W. E.
Greame, Major P. Lloyd
Maddocks, Henry


Boyd-Carpenter, Major A.
Green, J. F. (Leicester)
Mallalieu, Frederick William


Brassey, H. L. C.
Greer, Harry
Malone, Major P. (Tottenham, S.)


Breese, Major C. E.
Gregory, Holman
Martin, A. E.


Briggs, Harold
Creig, Colonel James William
Mason, Robert


Britton, G. B.
Gretton, Colonel John
Meysey-Thompson, Lt.-Col. E. C.


Brown, Captain D. C. (Hexham)
Guinness, Lt.-Col. Hon. W. E.(B. St. E.)
Middlebrook, Sir William


Buckley, Lt.-Colonel A.
Hailwood, A.
Miidmay, Col. Rt. Hon. Francis B.


Bull, Rt. Hon. Sir William James
Hall, Lt.-Cot. Sir Fred (Dulwich)
Molson, Major John Elsdale


Burden, Colonel Rowland
Hambro, Angus Valdemar
Montagu, Rt. Hon. E. S.


Burn, Col. C. R. (Torquay)
Hamilton, Major C. G. C. (Altrincham)
Moore, Maj.-Gen. Sir Newton J.


Butcher, Sir J. G.
Hanna, G. B.
Moore-Brabazon, Lieut.-Col. J. T. C.


Campbell, J. G. D.
Hanson, Sir Charles
Moreing, Captain Algernon H.


Campion, Colonel W. R.
Harris, Sir H. P. (Paddington, S.)
Morrison, H. (Salisbury)


Carr, W. T.
Haslam, Lewis
Mosley, Oswald


Casey, T. W.
Hennessy, Major G.
Mount, William Arthur


Cecil, Rt. Hon. Evelyn (Aston Manor)
Henry, Denis S. (Londonderry, S.)
Munro, Rt. Hon. Robert


Chamberlain, Rt. Han. J.A. (Birm., W.)
Hilder, Lieut.-Colonel F.
Murchison, C. K.


Chamberlain, N. (Birm., Ladywood)
Hills, Major J. W. (Durham)
Murray, Hon. G. (St, Rollox)


Cheyne, Sir William Watson
Hoare, Lt.-Colonel Sir Samuel J. G.
Murray, William (Dumfries)


Clay, Captain H. H. Spender
Hood, Joseph
Nelson, R. F. W. R.


Clyde, James Avon
Hope, Harry (Stirling)
Newman, Major J. (Finchley, M'ddx.)


Coats, Sir Stuart
Hope, Lieut.-Col. Sir J. (Midlothian)
Newman, Sir R. H. S. D. (Exeter)


Cobb, Sir Cyril
Hope, John Deans (Berwick)
Nicholl, Com. Sir Edward


Colvin. Brig.-General R. B.
Hopkins, J. W. W.
Nicholson, R. (Doncaster)


Cory, Sir James Herbert (Cardiff)
Hopkinson, Austin (Mossley)
Nicholson, W. (Petersfield)


Courthope, Major George Loyd
Hughes, Spencer Leigh
Nield, Sir Herbert


Cozens-Hardy, Hon. W. H.
Hunter. Gen, Sir A. (Lancaster)
Norton-Griffiths, Lt.-Cot, Sir J.


Craig, Captain Charles C. (Antrim)
Hunter-Weston, Lieut.-Gen. Sir A. G.
Oman, C. W. C.


Craik, Rt. Hen. Sir Henry
Hurd, P. A.
O'Neill, Captain Hon. Robert W. H.


Curzon, Commander Viscount
Hurst, Major G. B.
Palmer, Major G. M. (Jarrow)


Dalziel, Sir Davison (Brixton)
Illingworth, Fit. Hon. Albert H.
Parker, James


Davies, Sir D. S. (Denbigh)
Inskip, T. W. H.
Parkinson, Albert L. (Blackpool)


Davies, Sir Joseph (Crewe)
Jesson, C.
Parry, Lt.-Colonel Thomas Henry


Davies, T. (Cirencester)
Jodrell, N. P.
Pearce, Sir William


Davison, Sir W. H. (Kensington)
Jones, Sir Evan (Pembroke)
Pease, Rt. Hon. Herbert Pike


Dean, Com. P. T.
Kallaway, Frederick George
Peel, Col. Hon. S. (Uxbridge, Mddx.)


Dennis, J. W.
Kerr-Smiley, Major P.
Perring, William George


Denniss, E. R. Bartley (Oldham)
Kidd, James
Philipps, Gen. Sir I. (Southampton)


Dewhurst, Lieut.-Commander H.
Kinloch-Cooke, Sir Clement
Pinkham, Lieut.-Colonel Charles




Pollock, Sir Ernest Murray
Seely, Maj.-Gen. Right Hon. John
Ward, Dudley (Southampton)


Pownall, Lt.-Colonel Assheton
Shaw, Captain W. T. (Forfar)
Wardle, George J.


Pratt, John William
Shortt, Rt. Hon. E. (N'castle-on-T., W.)
Waring, Major Walter


Prescott, Major W. H.
Smith, Sir Allan
Warner, Sir T. Courtenay T.


Pulley, Charles Thornton
Sprot, Colonel Sir Alexander
Weston, Colonel John W.


Purchase, H. G.
Stanier, Captain Sir Beville
Wheler, Colonel Granville C. H.


Randles, Sir John Scurrah
Stanley, Col. Hon. G. (Preston)
Whitla, Sir William


Rankin, Capt. James S.
Stanton, Charles Butt
Williams, Lt.-Com. C. (Tavistock)


Rees, Sir J. D.
Starkey, Capt. John Ralph
Willoughby, Lt.-Col. Hon. Claud


Rield, D. D.
Steel, Major S. Strang
Wilson, Capt. A. Stanley (Hold'ness)


Rendall, Athelstan
Stephenson, Colonel H. K.
Wilson, Col. M. (Richmond, Yorks.)


Renwick, G.
Stewart, Gershom
Wilson-Fox, Henry


Richardson, Alex. (Gravesend)
Sugden, Lieut. W. H.
Wood, Sir H. K. (Woolwich, W.)


Roberts, Rt. Hon. G. H. (Norwich)
Sykes, Col. Sir A. J. (Knutsford)
Wood, Major S. Hill- (High Peak)


Roberts, Sir S. (Sheffield, Ecclesall)
Talbot, G. A. (Hornet Hempstead)
Woolcock, W. J. U.


Robinson, S. (Brecon and Radnor)
Thomson, Sir W. Mitchell- (M'yhl)
Worthington-Evans, Rt. Hon. Sir L.


Rogers, Sir Hallewell
Townjey, Maximilian G.
Yate, Colonel Charles Edward


Roundell, Lt.-Colonel R. F.
Tryon, Major George Clement
Yeo, Sir Alfred William


Samuel, A. M. (Farnham, Surrey)
Walters, Sir John Tudor
Younger, Sir George


Samuel, S. (Wandsworth, Putney)
Ward, Col. J. (Stoke, Trent)
TELLERS FOR THE NOES—Lord E.


Seager, Sir William
Ward, Col. L. (Kingston-upon-Hull)
Talbot and Captain F. Guest.

NEW CLAUSE.—(Amendment of S. 26, Sub- section (3, c) of the Act of 1911.)

Paragraph (c) of Sub-section (3) shall be amended by the insertion at the end thereof of the words:
Provided that the expression "municipal boundary" shall mean, for the purposes of this Sub-section, the boundary of the area within which the functions of local administration and local rating are carried on.—.[Major M. Wood.]

Brought up, and read the first time.

Major M. WOOD: I beg to move "That the Clause be read a second time."
It has been found in the working of the Act of 1911 that very often—

Mr. MUNRO: I desire to put to you, Mr. Deputy-Speaker, the point whether it would be, convenient, in discussing this new Clause, to discuss at the same time the Clause standing in the name of the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Peebles (As to land within burgh in crafting counties) which deals with precisely the same matter as the Clause now before the House, except that I understand my right hon. Friend's new Clause is limited to crofting counties. The two Clauses are closely inter-related.

Sir D. MACLEAN: As the discussion proceeds it will become evident how far the Clause standing in my name and the Present Clause will be covered by the discussion. I can only assure the right hon. Gentleman that we will not unnecessarily cause delay. In so far as Mr. Deputy-Speaker allows it, the discussion might, perhaps, cover my Clause, as the subject is practically identical.

Mr. DEPUTY-SPEAKER (Sir E. Corn-wall): I understand this refers to the new Clause standing in the name of the right
hon. Gentleman the Member for Peebles, which is the second one on page 2899 of the Amendment Paper?

Sir D. MACLEAN: That is so.

Mr. DEPUTY-SPEAKER: Of course, I must judge the matter as the discussion proceeds, but I will bear in mind the right hon. Gentleman's suggestion.

Major WOOD: The object of the new Clause is quite clear. There has been found to be much land, ire many cases within the royalty of a burgh and outside the rating area, which would be quite convenient for toe purposes of setting up small holdings, but by the interpretation given to the Act that land was excluded. do not for one moment suggest that we should make land available for small holdings which might be required for the development of a town. There seems to me no danger of that sort of thing, because the Board of Agriculture presumably would see that no land should be taken for small holdings which would hinder the development of a town. In many cases land in proximity to a town is the very best land that could possibly be obtained for small holdings, because the produce of the holdings could be sold in the neighbouring towns. I hope that the Government will do something to meet this difficulty and will remember that their own Board of Agriculture will see that any powers which they give them are not abused.

Captain W. BENN: I beg to second the Motion.

Mr. CLYDE: I ought to say at once that as between the two proposals, the one just moved and the proposal which appears on page 2899 of the Amendment Paper, the latter approaches very nearly, if not quite,
an Amendment we should be prepared to accept. The difficulty with regard to the Clause now moved is that it is universal in its application. It would apply in all parts of Scotland, and, in particular, to land within a Royal burgh, even although that land were rapidly becoming developed for building purposes. No doubt there may be one or two such cases within the crofting counties, but I think what hon. Members have in mind is not rapid and progressing burghs; they are thinking of different counties altogether. If the hon. and gallant Member would withdraw this proposal we should be prepared when we reach page 2899, to accept the new Clause standing in the name of the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Peebles.

Mr. HOGGE: As it stands?

Mr. CLYDE: I would not like for the moment to commit myself to that. There is one point I wish to make quite clear. One of the inducements to accept the second proposal rather than the first is that the second expressly applies only as from the commencement of the Bill when it becomes an Act. Hon. Members on reflecting will see the great difficulty of accepting an enlargement of the scope of the measure such as that now proposed, which takes effect right back to 1911. That we could not possibly accept, because I do not know in what confusion it might involve us. If the offer I make here and now commends itself to the hon. Member, I would ask him to withdraw this new Clause upon the undertaking I have given that the new Clause on page 2899 of the Amendment Paper, or one substantially like it, would be accepted.

Sir G. YOUNGER: I would ask the Lord Advocate whether he has considered the question of rating in connection with the Clause he proposes to accept? Is there, for instance, anything to prevent a house and garden in Inverness being created a small holding and being exempted from rating?

Mr. CLYDE: The hon. Baronet is quite right. The difficulty, which exists already in the case of these small holdings in the county districts, would also exist in the case of small holdings which are within a municipal or police area. That is perfectly true. But, frankly, I think that is one of the reasons why it is not likely there will be any considerable creation of smallholders in municipal areas. On the
other hand, it will not apply in the case of small holdings which it is proposed to create within the ancient royalty of a Royal burgh but outside the actual police boundary of the burgh. Therefore, although I admit there may be difficulties if the Board of Agriculture were unwise in their selection of the sites for these holdings, I do not think there is any reason to anticipate a special difficulty because of burgh rates as distinct from county rates if the Board exercise their ordinary discretion.

Mr. HOGGE: May I say, on behalf of those who put down this Amendment in Committee upstairs, how gratifying it is to us to find that the Government are prepared to accept a Clause which was then ruled out of order? I am sure my hon. and gallant Friend (Major M. Wood) will not press the present Clause if the other new Clause is accepted substantially as it stands. The point raised by the hon. Baronet the Member for Ayr (Sir G. Younger) is a perfectly fair one. We would never dream of an application of that sort. All we have in our minds is the settlement of a long outstanding difficulty in the crofting counties. One knows that the Government could not accept the present proposal, as the royalties exist all over Scotland. If we get this extension to the crofting counties, it is a great step forward, and I suggest that my hon. and gallant Friend should intimate at once that he withdraws his proposal and waits for the discussion on the other Clause.

Sir G. YONGER: May I suggest to the Lord Advocate that he should consider the desirability of embracing some words to prevent indiscretion?
Motion and Clause, by leave, withdrawn.

NEW CLAUSE.—(Amendment of S. 26, Sub- section (3, f) of the Act of 1911.)

Paragraph (f) of Sub-section (3) is hereby repealed and in lieu thereof the following shall be substituted:
Subject to the provisions of this Act as to permissible uses of small holdings, any holding which is not agricultural or pastoral in its character or partly agricultural and partly pastoral.—[Major M. Wood.]

Brought up, and read the first time.

Major M. WOOD: I beg to move, "That the Clause be read a second time."
I move this new Clause with the object of rectifying an interpretation given by
the Court of Session of a phrase in the Act of 1911. The words in Section. 26 of that Act were
wholly agricultural or wholly pastoral or in part agricultural and as to the residue pastoral." The Court took the view, with regard to the words
residue pastoral," that they excluded land being used for any other purpose except agricultural or pastoral use. It excluded the most industrial class a all, those who had a, subsidiary occupation. I am sure that was not the intention of the Act, and I believe the Government will say that that is so, and will accordingly meet us on the point.

Mr. JAMES BROWN: I beg to second the Motion.

Mr. CLYDE: I am afraid we cannot accept this proposal. I would ask the hon. Member to consider very seriously whether these words could possibly be productive of any result other than confusion? As the scheme of the Small Landholders Act stands, it is a scheme applicable to agricultural occupancy. It is true that agriculture is the same thing for that purpose as a pasture, but it does not apply to industrial property to house property. The hon. member is quite right when he says there have been cases in which the Courts have been asked to determine in particular circumstances this question, "is this an agricultural or a pastoral holding or is it something else?" There are cases where a holding is of a very mixed character, where, in point of fact, it is partly industrial and nut agricultural or pastoral at ail, and in those cases the Courts have had to decide on the facts of each case, whether they might fairly say, taken on the whole, "You may keep tins as agricultural holding," or, on the other hand, "You must use it as an industrial holding." I do not know whether those decisions may have commended themselves or not, but they were decisions made on the facts of each particular case. Observe what this will do. This would say that a holding which can come under the Act is a holding which is riot agricultural or pastoral in character or partly agricultural and partly pastoral, in other words, an industrial holding or a piece of house property. That would turn the whole scheme upside down. I do not know whether the hon. and gallant Gentleman meant that, but that is what the words mean, and these words we could not possibly accept. I do not see how the kind
of problem the Courts have had to consider in the cases which he has in his mind can be avoided. You are always getting, in actual life, mixed cases where it is difficult to say that anything fairly falls in one category or another, and you have to present them for decision, if people cannot agree. It would be no remedy for that state of affairs to say you were going to bring in property, whether agricultural or not. I ask the hon. and gallant Gentleman to withdraw his Amendment. It will not serve his purpose.
Motion and Clause, by leave, withdrawn.

NEW CLAUSE.—(Statutory Small Tenants to become Landholders.)

Without prejudice to the provisions of Section two of the Act of 1911 so far as mire-pealed by this Act:

(1) In the Landholders Acts the word "holding" means and includes, as from the respective dates after-mentioned, every holding which at the commencement of this Act is held by a statutory small tenant to whom in respect of such holding the Act of 1911 applies (hereinafter referred to as an existing statutory small tenant) provided that this Section shall apply in every case where a period of renewal of tenancy, current at the commencement of this Act, shall have bean fixed by order of the Land Court or by agreement, as from the expiry of the period thereby fixed, and in every other case as from the expiry of the year of tenancy current at the commencement of this Act;
(2) In the Landholder Acts the word "land-holder" means and includes, as from the respective dates above-mentioned, every existing statutory small tenant and the successors of every such person in the holding, being his heirs, legatees, or assignees.— [Major M. Wood.]

Brought up, and read the first time.

Major M. WOOD: I beg to move, "That the Clause be read a second time."
The effect of tins would be to abolish the statutory small tenant altogether. He was set up by the Act of 1911, and was the result of a compromise entered into at the eleventh hour. The statutory small tenant is a hybrid, who stands half-way between the ordinary agricultural tenant and the smallholder. According to the definition, a statutory small tenant is the tenant of a holding the greater part of whose improvements have been carried out by the landlord. If the landlord has not carried out the greater part of the improvements himself it becomes an ordinarily small holding. Under the Act no new statutory small tenant can be created. The class, therefore, is bound to diminish, and is becoming rapidly less.
Under Section 32 of the Act many of them are being declared statutory small tenancies, because the landlord has not been carrying out improvements and has not been keeping up buildings in the way the Land Court thinks he ought to have done. The statutory small tenant has to a large extent the same fixity of tenure that the landholder has. I make no complaint about the landholder on that score. The real difficulty with regard to the statutory small tenant is that he does not get the benefit of the improvements carried out by himself or his predecessors. Take, for instance, a small tenancy the value of whose improvements amounts to £500 Supposing the landlord has himself carried out £251 worth of these improvements, the tenant gets absolutely no consideration whatever when it comes to his leaving the holding, and the fact that he has carried out £249 worth of improvements does not entitle him to ask the Land Court to take it into consideration in fixing his rent. If, however, he has carried out £250 worth of improvements and is giving up the tenancy, that is taken into account, and he is able to get fair compensation for the work which has been carried out on the holding by himself or by his predecessors. What reason is there for giving him compensation when he has carried out improvements of the value of £250 and denying it when he has only carried out improvements to the extent of £249? It is not a question of being unable to do it because the Land Court is quite capable of apportioning the compensation in proportion to the improvements actually carried out. I suggest that something should be done to guarantee to the statutory small tenants the full value of the improvements which they carry out. I should like the Secretary for Scotland to tell us on what principle it is alleged that we can properly give the statutory small tenant the benefit of improvements when they extend to £250 and deny them when they only go the length of £249. Another grievance that statutory small tenants have is that they cannot obtain an enlargement of their holdings compulsorily. If a statutory small tenant has only 20 acres and there may be any number of acres lying beside him, he cannot get an increase of his holding. He may get some extra land as a landholder, but he must have it in two different ways. There are a number of small technical differences
between a statutory small tenant and a landholder, but the important one is the difference in the matter of compensation. I would ask the Government to do something to remove a grievance which is very acutely felt throughout the whole of Scotland.

Mr. J. BROWN: beg to second the Motion.
I think a great many hardships have been inflicted under the Small Statutory Tenants Act, and if the Secretary for Scotland accepts this, he will remove a great many grievances which have existed amongst persons who have done everything in their power to improve small tenancies, but because they had not the greater part of the money to carry out the improvements they were held as not coming under the compensation Clause.

Mr. MUNRO: I appeal to the hon. and gallant Gentleman not to press this Clause. He has raised what is, obviously, a very important question, but it also has been an acutely controversial one. The institution of the statutory small tenant was the result of Compromise arrived at after much deliberation in 1911. The statutory small tenant belongs to a fixed class which is rapidly diminishing, and to alter his position at present would be to reopen the whole question which was discussed so much in 1911 between the North and the South of Scotland. I hope we shall not reopen that question here, or else I am afraid we are in for a very long Debate. After all, the statutory small tenant is not so badly off. I am not aware that he complains of his position. So far as I know there has been no suggestion of complaint made to the Board of Agriculture and I am not surprised when one remembers his rights. He has security of tenure, which is the most valuable thing of all. He has the right of bequest, and Iris successor may enjoy a similar right, and not infrequently the tenure is really hereditary. This alteration was not even proposed in the Bill presented by the hon. Member (Mr. Hogge), who surveyed the whole situation with great care and brought forward proposals for the alleviation of all existing grievances. It is significant that that omission should be found in the Bill of which we have heard so much recently. It is undesirable to force upon statutory small tenants, who are not complaining, an alteration in status which is quite different from any-
thing they have ever contracted to secure. If we have a long discussion on each Amendment I ant very much afraid the safety of the Bill may be imperilled.
Motion and Clause, by leave, withdrawn.

NEW CLAUSE.—(Protection against Damage by Game.)

Without prejudice to the provisions of Section ten, Sub-section (3), of the Act of 1911, the tenant of any holding to which these Acts, or any of them, apply, shall, any law or custom or agreement to the contrary notwithstanding, have full right to kill or take on his holding any deer, game, vermin, or other wild animals or birds, so far as reasonably required for the protection of his land and of any crops or other produce of or on his holding against injury or damage.—[Mr. Adamson.]

Brought up, and read the first time.

Mr. ADAMSON: I beg to move "That the Clause be read a second time."
The point raised by this Clause was debated at considerable length in Committee. It is one of the theory subjects that is almost invariably discussed in connection with land tenure. I am moving it with a view to reducing, as far as we possibly can, the difficulties of ex-Service men in successfully cultivating the holdings to be provided for them under tins Bill. We are aware that these ex-Service men will have sufficient difficulties to overcome in successfully cultivating their holdings without having added to them the difficulty of having their crops destroyed by game. It is well known in various parts of the country that there is a considerable amount of valuable foodstuffs destroyed by game and vermin, and it is with a view to giving the smallholders sufficient protection that I move this Clause. Under the existing law it is possible for the smallholder to claim compensation for damages, but in prosecuting a claim of that character he has to incur expenditure which many of these men will not be able to afford Not only is the securing of compensation costly, but it is somewhat slow, and we want to give the men prompt and sufficient protection against damage to their crops and the feeding-stuffs of the country, which are of the greatest value to the people under existing conditions.

Mr. MUNRO: There are two reasons why I find it difficult to accept the Clause. The first is that, without expressing any view upon the merits of the proposal, it would be extremely difficult to accept this proposal as relating to small holdings of
30 acres and deny the same protection to small farms of 100 or 200 acres, or even larger farms.

Mr. ADAMSON: Bring in another Bill.

Mr. MUNRO: At this stage of the Session, the right hon. Gentleman's suggestion is hardly feasible. It would be unfair and unreasonable to give tins protection to men with holdings of 50 acres, and to refuse it to those whose acreage exceeds that figure. Apart from that, there is this consideration which is relevant, that I have quite recently, within the last few weeks, appointed a Committee representing all the interests concerned to consider this very topic and to report.

Dr. MURRAY: Are there any smallholders upon it?

Mr. MUNRO: I could not tell my hon. Friend right off who the members are, but the personnel of the Committee was so selected as to represent all the interests concerned. That Committee is now proceeding to investigate, and after investigation it will make a Report. It would be quite premature to give effect to this proposal until one has seen the Report of the Committee. There have been rules and regulations in force during war-time which it may or may not be desirable to continue its peacetime. There were regulations relating to these matters, and the Committee to which I have referred is meantime considering whether they should extend the period or whether tiny should cease. While the whole matter is sub judice, it is premature to legislate on time subject on lines exclusively limited to smallholders.

Dr. MURRAY: I am not much influenced by the argument that it is unfair to give this right to smallholders simply because it is not given to the larger farmers. We are only dealing with Smallholders and small holdings, and placing men as smallholders upon the land. Therefore, it is desirable that the conditions for these people should be as good as possible, in order to give them the best possible chance of making a living upon these holdings. It is a practical question in many parts of the country, and especially in the Highlands, where very often the crops of the tenants are ruined by deer, and sometimes by grouse. It is highly desirable that this protection should be given to the smallholders. I would appeal to the sporting instincts of hon. Gentlemen opposite to allow tint; Clause, because it would be
a means of training the smallholders in sporting matters. I do not claim that the crofters do not know how to shoot deer and so on, but it is not a Highland custom. It would be an excellent idea to train their sporting instincts in this way. I am not impressed by the suggestion that we should wait until the Committee has reported. Committees which are sent all over the islands are all for shelving questions. There was a Committee on transport, and the transport in the islands is worse than it has been for twenty years. To wait until this Committee reports and to expect any sort of protection for the smallholders from the Report of a Committee of that kind would be simply to waste our time.

Mr. MUNRO: Will my hon. Friend tell me why he makes that statement? He seems to be without knowledge as to the constitution of the Committee, and yet he says the Report will be worthless.

Dr. MURRAY: I say it from my experience of former committees that have been sent. I mentioned the question of transport. What good has come from that? I have had complaints from responsible quarters that the interest of the smallholders are not represented upon this Committee.

Mr. MUNRO: The hon. Member is making most reckless statements without any foundation. A representative of the smallholders, Mr. James Scott, than whom there is no better exponent of the small holdings doctrine in Scotland, was put upon this Committee for the express purpose of safeguarding their interests.

Dr. MURRAY: I agree that Mr. Scott is an excellent representative, but I have had complaints from responsible quarters in the North of Scotland that the smallholders have not been directly represented upon this Committee. This is a very serious grievance in some parts of Scotland, and there is no use in saying that we should wait until this Committee has reported.

Sir D. MACLEAN: This question is one in regard to which it is very easy to excite a great deal of heat. I will not say prejudice. I do not approach it from that point of view, neither do I desire to import any prejudice or undue heat into the discussion. It is common ground that methods for dealing with this evil are in contemplation, and the right hon. Gentle-
man has made the practical step of appointing a Committee, upon which I gather that the smallholders are specially represented. I want to ask a few questions about it. When are the Committee going to get to work, and assuming that their Report is in favour of something being done such as is proposed in the new Clause, what steps will the Secretary for Scotland pledge himself to take. Here we have the only Parliamentary opportunity of finding out exactly where the Government stands in regard to this most important matter. The proposed Clause says that the tenant of the holding may be entitled to have the full right to kill or take any deer, game, etc.," and he can exercise the right which the Legislature has given him—for what purpose "So far as reasonably required for the protection of his land and of any crops or other produce of or on his holding against injury or damage." Even the most rabid objectors to the right to take and kill would not say that if the small holding is damaged by game that that is not a right and fair thing.

Sir G. YOUNGER: The smallholder gets compensation.

Sir D. MACLEAN: He would much rather be without compensation and have his holding free to get the full results of his labour from it. The men on these small holdings are entitled to protection against the ravages and depredations of game, and they are entitled to say, "We should be protected even though you are going to give us compensation for damage." Will the right hon. Gentleman tell us when the Committee is going to set to work, and if the Committee reports substantially in favour of the position I have put, what steps he will propose to take to carry the recommendation into effect?

Mr. MUNRO: The right hon. Gentleman asks me two reasonable questions. The Committee, according to my information, is at work now. In regard to the second question as to what undertaking I can give in regard to any action to be taken upon the Report of the Committee if it is favourable to the line suggested in this Amendment, time right hon. Gentleman will appreciate that I cannot pledge the Government in advance to give the time of the House to any Bill which may be proposed; but I can say this, and quite gladly, that if the Committee's Report is in the direction indicated, then,
assuming that I hold the office that I now hold, I shall use all my influence to secure that legislation to give effect to their proposals should be introduced without delay. I hope any right hon. Friend will regard this answer as satisfactory.

Mr. RAFFAN: Can the right hon. Gentleman say whether the Regulations are still in force, and, if so, will they be continued until such time as the Committee can report, and legislation can take effect?

Sir L. HARMSWORTH: Will the right hon. Gentleman have any objection to give the names of the Committee?

Mr. MUNRO: None in the world except that I do not happen to have them here. If my hon. Friend will put down a

question, I shall be most happy to give the names. They have appeared in the public Press.

Sir L. HARMSWORTH: I do not ask the question in any critical spirit.

Mr. MUNRO: I am not answering in any critical spirit. The names were published in the "London Gazette" as well as the "Edinburgh Gazette." As regards the other question, these Regulations are in force now and bridge over the hiatus between the present situation and any legislation that may subsequently be introduced.
Question put, "That the Clause be read a second time."

The House divided: Ayes, 74; Noes, 232.

Division No. 142.]
AYES
[6.48 p. m.


Adamson, Rt. Hon. William
Hancock, John George
Scott, A. M. (Glas., Bridgeton)


Bell, James (Ormskirk)
Hairnsworth, Sir R. L. (Caithness-shire)
Short, A. (Wednesbury)


Benn, Captain W. (Leith)
Henderson, Rt. Hon. Arthur
Sitch, C. H.


Brace, Rt. Hon. William
Hirst, G. H.
Smith, W. (Wellingborough)


Bramsden, Sir T.
Hodge, Rt. Hon. John
Spoor, B. G


Bromfield, W.
Hogge, J. M.
Sutherland, Sir William


Brown, J. (Ayr and Bute)
Irving, Dan
Swan, J. E. C.


Cairns, John
Johnstone, J.
Taylor, J. (Dumbarton)


Carter. W. (Mansfield)
Jones, Henry Haydn (Merioneth)
Thomas, Fit. Hon. J. H. (Derby)


Cowan, D. M. (Scottish University)
Jones, J. (Silvertown)
Thomson, T. (Middlesbrough, W.)


Cowan, Sir H. (Aberdeen and Kinc.)
Kenyon, Barnet
Thorne, G. R. (Wolverhampton)


Davies, Alfred (Clitheroe)
Lawson, John
Thorne, W. (Plaistow)


Davison, J. E. (Smethwick)
Lunn, William
Tootill, Robert


Edwards. C. (Bedwellty)
Macdonald, Rt. Hon. J. M. (Stirling)
Walsh, S. (Ince, Lancs.)


Edwards, Major J. (Aberavon)
Murray, Lt.-Col. Hon. A. C. (Aberdeen)
Ward, Col. J. (Stoke, Trent)


Edwards, J. H. (Glam., Neath)
Murray, Dr. D. (Western Isles)
Waterson, A. E.


En[...]wistle, Major C. F.
Murray, John (Leeds, W.)
Wignall, James


Galbraith, Samuel
Newbould, A. E.
Williams, A. (Consett, Durham)


Gardiner, (Perth)
Parkinson, John Allen (Wigan)
Williams, J. (Gower, Glam.)


Glanville, Harold James
Rae, H. Norman
Winfrey, Sir Richard


Graham, D. M. (Hamilton)
Raffan, Peter Wilson
Wood, Maj. Mackenzie (Aberdeen, C.)


Graham, W. (Edinburgh)
Rees, Captain.J. Tudor
Young, William (Perth and Kinross)


Grundy, T. W.
Richardson, R. (Houghton)



Guest, J. (Hemsworth, York)
Roberts, F. O. (W. Bromwich)
TELLERS FOR THE AYES—Mr.


Hall, F. (Yorks, Normanton)
Rodger, A. K.
T. Griffiths and Mr. Neil McLean.


Hallas, E.
Rose, Frank H.



NOES.


Agg Gardner, Sir James Tynte
Borwick, Major G. O.
Cobb, Sir Cyril


Ainsworth, Captain C.
Boscawen, Sir Arthur Griffith-
Cockerill, Brig.-General G. K.


Allen, Colonel William James
Bowyer, Captain G. W. E.
Coifox, Major W. P.


Ashley, Col. Wilfred W.
Boyd-Carpenter, Major A.
Colvin, Brig.-General R. B.


Astor, Viscountess
Brassey, H. L. C.
Cope, Major W. (Glamorgan)


Atkey, A. R.
Breese, Major C. E.
Cory, Sir James Herbert (Cardiff)


Bagley, Captain E. A.
Briggs, Harold
Cozens-Hardy, Hon. W. H.


Baird, John Lawrence
Britton, G. B.
Craig, Captain Charles C. (Antrim)


Baldwin, Stanley
Brown, Captain D. C. (Hexham)
Craik, Rt. Hon. Sir Henry


Balfour, George (Hampstead)
Buckley, Lt.-Colonel A.
Davies, Sir D. S. (Denbigh)


Balfour, Sir Robert (Partick)
Bull, Rt. Hon. Sir William James
Davies, T. (Cirencester)


Banbury, Rt. Hon. Sir Frederick
Burdon, Col. Rowland
Davison, Sir W. H. (Kensington)


Banner, Sir J. S. Harmood-
Burn, Col. C. R. (Torquay)
Dean, Com. P. T.


Barnett, Major Richard W.
Campbell, J. G. D.
Dennis, W.


Barnston, Major H.
Campion, Colonel W. R.
Denniss, E. R. Bartley (Oldham)


Barrand, A. R.
Carr, W. T.
Dewhurst, Lieut.-Commander H.


Beckett, Hon. Gervasé
Casey, T. W.
Dockrell, Sir M.


Boll, Lt.-Col. W. C. H. (Devizes)
Cecil, Rt. Hon. Evelyn (Aston Manor)
Doyle, N. Grattan


Benn, Com. Ian Hamilton (Greenwich)
Cecil, Rt. Hon. Lord H. (Oxford Univ.)
Duncannon, Viscount


Bennett, T. J.
Chamberlain, Rt. Hon. J.A. (Birm., W.)
D[...] Pre, Colonel W. B.


Betterton, H. B.
Cheyne, Sir Wiliam Watson
Eyres-Monsell, Commander


Birchall, Major.J. D.
Clay, Captain H. H. Spender
Falcon, Captain M.


Bird, Alfred
Clyde, James Avon
Falle, Major Sir Bertram Godfrey


Blades, Sir George, R.
Coats, Sir Stuart
Fisher, Rt. Hon. Herbert A. L.


FitzRoy, Captain Hon. Edward A.
Law, A. J. (Rochdale)
Prescott, Major W. H.


Fiannery, Sir J. Fortescue
Law, Rt. Hon. A. Bonar (Glasgow)
Pulley, Cnaries Tllornton


Foreman, H.
Lawis, T. A. (Pontypridd, Glam.)
Pur[...]ase, H. G.


Foxcroft. Captain C.
Lindsay, William Arthur
Randles, Sirr John Scurrah


Fraser, major Sir keith
Lioyd, George Butler
Raw, Lieut. -Colonef Dr. N


Gardner, E. (Berks, Windsor)
Locker-Lampson, Com. O. (Hunt'don)
Rees, Sir J. O.


Geddes, Rt. Hon. Sir A. C. (Bas'gst'ke)
Lonsdale, James R.
Reid, D. D.


Gibbs, Colonel John Abraham
Lorden, John William
Rendall, Athelstan


Gilbert, James Daniel
Lort Williams, J.
Ronwick, G.


Gilmour, Lieut. -Colonel John
M'Laren, R. (Lanark, N.)
Richardson. Alex. (Gravesend)


Glyn, Major R.
M'Lean, Lt.-Col. C. W. W. (Brigg)
Roberts, Rt. Hon. G. H. (Norwich)


Goff, Sir Park
Macmaster, Donald
Roberts, Sir S. (Sheffield, Ecclesall)


Grant, James Augustus
McNeill, Ronald (Canterbury)
Robinson. S. (Brecon and Radnor)


Green, J F. (Leicester)
Mallalieu, Frederick William
Rog[...]s, [...] H ailewell


Greer, Harry
Malone, Major P. (Tottenham, S.)
Roundell, Lt.-colonel R. F.


Gregory, Holman
Marks, Sir George Croydon
Samuel, A. m. (Farnham, Surrey)


Greig, Coionel Jamas William
Marriott, John Arthur R.
Samuel, S. (Wandsworlh, Putney)


Gretton, Colonel Jcha
Martin, A. E.
Sassoan, Sir Philip A. G. D.


Guinness, Lt.-Col. Hon. W. E.(B. St. E.)
Mason, Robert
seager, Sir William


Hailwood, A.
Matthews, David
Shaw, Captain W. T. (Forfar)


Hall, Lt.-Col. Sir Fred (Dulwich)
Meysey-Thompson, Lt.-Col. E. C.
Sprozi, Colonel Sir Alexander


Hambro, Angus Valdemar
Middlebrook, Sir William
Stamey, Col. Hon. G. (Preston)


Hamitton, Major C. G. C. (Altrincham)
Mildmay, Col. Rt. Hon. Francis B.
Stanton, charles Butt


Hanna, G. B.
Moles, Thomas
Steel, Major S. strang


Hanson, Sir Charles
Molson, Major John Elsdale
Stephenson, Colonel H. K.


Haslam, Lewis
Montagu, Rt. Hon. E. S.
Stewart, Gershom.


Henderson. Maj. V. L. (Tradeston, Glas)
Moore-Brabazon, Lieut.-Col. J. T. C.
Strauss, Edward Anthony


Hennessy, Major G.
Moreing, Captain Algernon H.
Sykes, Col. Sir A. J. (Knutsford)


Henry, Denis S. (Londonderry, S.)
Morrison, H. (Salisbury)
Talbot, G. A. (Hemel Hempstead)


Hickman, Brig.-General Thomas E.
Morrison-Bell, Major A. C.
Thomson, F. C. (Aberdeen, S.)


Hilder, Lieut. -Colonel F.
Mosley, Oswald
Townley, Maximilian G.


Hoare, Lt. -Colonel Sir Samuel J. G.
Mount, William Arthur
Tryon, Major George Clement


Hohler, Gerald Fitzroy
Munro, Rt. Hon. Robert
Walters, Sir John Tudor


Hope, Harry (Stirling)
Murchison, C. K.
Ward, Col. L. (Kingston-upon-Hull)


Hope, James Fitzalan (Sheffield)
Murray, Hon. G. (St, Rollox)
Wasort, John Cathcart


Hops, Lieut.-Col. Sir j. (Midlothian)
Murray, William (Dumfries)
Weston, Colonel John W.


Hope, John Deans (Berwick)
Neal, Arthur
Wheler, Colonel Granville C. H.


Hopkins, J. W. W.
Newman, Major J, (Finchley, M'ddx.)
White, Colonel G. D. (Southport)


Hopkinson, Austin (Mossley)
Newman, Sir R. H. S. D. (Exeter)
Whitla, Sir William


Houston, Robert Paterson
Nicholl, Com. Sir Edward
Wild, Sir Ernest Edward


Hughes, Spencer Leigh
Norton-Griffiths, Lt.-Col. Sir J.
Williams, Lt.-Com. C. (Tavistock)


Hunter, Gen. Sir A. (Lancaster)
Oman, C. W. C.
Willougnby, Lt.-Col. Hon. Claud


Hunter-Weston, Lieut.-Gen. Sir A. G.
O'Neill, Capt. Hon. Robert W. H.
Wills, Lt.-Col. Sir Gilbert Alan H.


Hurst, Major G. B.
Paimer, Major G. M. (Jarrow)
Wilson, Capt. A. Stanley (Hold'ness)


Inskip, T. W. H.
Parker, James
Wilson, Col. M. (Richmond, Yorks.)


Jephcott, A. R.
Parkinson, Albert L. (Blackpool)
Wood, Major S. Hill- (High Peak)


Jesson, C.
Pearce, Sir William
Woolcock. W. J. U.


Jodrell, N. P.
Peel, Col. Hon. S. (Uxbridge, Mddx.)
Worthington-Evans, Rt. Hon. Sir L.


Johnson, L. S.
Perring, William George
Yate, Colonel Charles Edward


Kerr-smiley, Major P.
Pilditch, Sir Philip
Yeo, Sir Alfred William


Kidd, James
Pinkham, Lieut-Colonel Charles
Younger. Sir George


Kinloch-Cooke, Sir Clement
Pollock, Sir Ernest Murray



Knight, Captain B. A.
Pownall, Lt.-Colonei Assheton
TELLERS FOR THE NOES.— Lord E.


Knights, Captain H.
Pratt, John William
Talbot and Mr. Dudley Ward.

NEW CLAUSE.—(Use of Land for Allotment.)

Any land acquired or leased fur allotments under this Act, the Act of 1892, or the Local Government (Scotland) Act, 1894, or occupied as allotments at the date of the passing of this Act (except ground in public parks, gardens pertainine- to a residence, or in ground pertaining to a railway or industrial works, and ground occupied as allotments temporarily under Section sixteen hereof) shall not be diverted to or used for any other purpose until it be decided by the Land Court that it is in the national interests or in the interests of the community immediately concerned that it be used for some other purpose than cultivation as allotment ground.—[Mr. Graham.]

Brought up, and read the first time.

Mr. W. GRAHAM: I beg to move, That the Clause be read a second time."
The three Clauses which appear before this on the Paper are not being moved because we feel that we have got all that
we can expect just now, and we are influenced also by the desire, as far as possible, to save the time of the House. We have put this Clause on the Paper largely from the point of view of obtaining information. Since the matter was discussed in Committee upstairs the Association of Allotment-holders in Scotland, which is a body representing all allotment-holders North of the Tweed, have considered the Bill as amended with reference to allotments, and I express their view when I say that they appreciate the the extent to which the Government has met their case. But, unfortunately, they are not clear in their minds with reference to the security of tenure as applied to existing allotments. and they suggest that a Clause of this kind might be embodied in the Bill in order to give what they regard as the reasonable seurity to which
they are entitled. It will be observed that the Clause excludes certain ground which might rightly be claimed, so to speak, for the purposes from which it has been diverted for use in allotments during the War, and in the second part of the Clause it is suggested that the Land Court should be the tribunal for trying cases in dispute. On that point the allotment-holders in. Scotland are in this position, that they have no desire whatever to make the Land Court the tribunal if any other tribunal which can be more satisfactory can be suggested.
7.0 P.M.
When this Clause was moved in Committee it was held that Clause 16 of the Bill, which refers 'to land for allotments, and its compulsory acquisition by a local authority, fully covered this case. But the allotment-holders consider that the ordinary interpretation which would be placed on Clause 16 as it now stands is that that Clause applies to land which may be required in the future for the purpose of allotments, and does not apply to land now used for allotment purposes. They therefore desire to have incorporated in this Bill some Clause, not necessarily this Clause, which will give them what they believe to be reasonable security of tenure. We wish to make it perfectly clear that we have no desire to secure for allotment-holders in Scotland land that is required for building, housing, industrial, or other great public purposes. What is suggested by this Clause is that where a tribunal, which has been properly appointed for the purpose, considers that it is the public interest that existing allotment-holders should be retained, effect should be given to its decision, and that men should not be turned off these allotments for what may well be other than an urgent public purpose. In the light of the needs of the allotment movement in Scotland, it is a reasonable request. Unless they have security of tenure in the next two or three years there is not the slightest doubt that a serious blow will be dealt to the extension of the allotment movement. That is a consideration in these days of high prices and of difficulty in the matter of food supplies.

Mr. N. MACLEAN: I beg to second the Motion.

Mr. MUNRO: I am very grateful to my hon. Friend for the moderate speech he has made and for the appreciation he has been good enough to express, on behalf of the
allotment-holders, of the provisions of the Bill. as it stands. I did not understand him to move the new Clause as a suitable Clause to go into the Bili as it stands, but rather that he moved it to obtain certain information. I hope my hon. Friend will fully appreciate the effect of the Clause and its phraseology. The effect would be to prevent the use for any other purpose of land once occupied as allotments, subject to the exceptions which are specified, till the Land Court had decided that that change was in the national or local public interest. That seems to me to be a very wide Amendment, for it covers all allotments, present or future, however established. Probably my hon. Friend has in mind simply existing allotments. Clauses 17 and 25 of the Bill give local authorities a guarded right of retention of existing allotments and very wide and simple powers for compulsory acquisition of laud for new allotments. Two-points arise on this new Clause. Is it suggested that the authority, which is to be the judge, should not be the town council but the Land Court? My hon. Friend seemed to think there was some difficulty about the tribunal. I think it would be a very anomalous thing and would be resented by ninny town councils in Scotland if the Land Court were to be introduced as the body to decide this matter. A more difficult question arises. Ought the terms and conditions upon which allotments have been laid out, or may be provided, to be set aside? That is what the new Clause involves. My hon. Friend's chief concern, I believe, was to be satisfied that the compulsory powers which are conferred by the Bill relate not only to land which may be taken in future, but to land which is now occupied for allotment purposes, and I rather gathered that if he were satisfied that that was the true interpretation of the Bill he would not press this matter further. On the best advice I can get I am assured that the expression of opinion I gave upstairs is sound, and that as worded the' Bill applies not only to land which may be acquired in future for allotments, but also to land which is now occupied for that purpose.

Mr. GRAHAM: I wish to express my appreciation of what the right hon. Gentleman has said. May I ask whether it is not possible to incorporate a phrase in Clause 16 which would place that beyond doubt, in order to meet the point of view of these small allotment-holders?

Mr. MUNRO: My information and advice is that the matter is now beyond doubt, but I shall have it examined again in the light of what my hon. Friend has said, and any alteration which is required I think it may be possible to make in another place.
Motion and Clause, by leave, withdrawn.

NEW CLAUSE.—(Amendment of Section 21 of the Act of 1911.)

Section twenty-one of the Act of 1911 shall be amended by inserting after the word "intestacy" the words "or any other person qualified to cultivate the holding."—[Major M. Wood.]

Brought up, and read the first time.

Major M. WOOD: I beg to move, "That the Clause be read a second time."
At present the holder of land can assign his holding only to members of his own family. I want to make provision for another case, where a man, for instance, may have no family to whom he can assign his holding. Suppose you have a man of seventy, who has been cultivating his holding well, has carried out a large number of improvements, and has really a holding which is valuable. He may get his old age pension, and with the money which he might be able to raise on his holding, Which has appreciated as a result of his own hard work, he would by this means be able to retire and have a quiet evening to his days. What reason is there against allowing a man so to assign his holding? I can see no reason whatever. If it is objected against me that it would lead to difficulties and anomalies, I would point out that the Clause lays down that he may apply to the Land Court. Any assignment of this sort is bound to be subject to the permission of the Land Court. That is an adequate safeguard against any assignment which would be wrong or against the spirit of the Act.

Dr. MURRAY: I beg to second the Motion.

Mr. CLYDE: This is a small Clause, but a very big question. It means that so far as the power of assigning is concerned under Section 21, it is to remain absolute in favour of anyone. We are not prepared now, and in connection with this Bill, to admit the principle of free sale. We cannot accept an Amendment which would have the effect of bringing in the principle of free sale. I think, so far as our present purposes are concerned, one might almost define the difficulty of ac-
cepting this, or our objections to this, in a more limited way. We have already included the son-in-law in the first new Clause accepted today. We have accepted that for purposes of bequest and assignation. We thought it would be quite legitimate to extend the area in which bequest and assignation might be legal so as to include practically the whole family circle. But this is going beyond the family circle. There is a strong reason for drawing the line there, because all through the conception of the small holding there runs the idea. of a family possession; the improvements are improvements made by someone or by his predecessors in the family. So the right to transmit was limited to the idea of a sort of family heritage which went down within the family.

Sir D. MACLEAN: With regard to the phrase which my right hon. Friend has used about "free sale." I should like to remind the House what Section 21 of the Act of 1911 says on the subject and how it is limited. It says that, in the event of the holder being unable to work his holding through illness, old age or infirmity, he may apply to the Land Court for leave to assign his holding to a member of his family, and now, of course, including the son-in-law, and if, after such hearing or inquiry as the Land Court, may think necessary, it appears to the Land Court that such assignment will be reasonable and proper it shall he competent for the Land Court to grant such terms as may seem to them fit. The Land Court must be presumed to be operating with full knowledge of the circumstances in the particular case, and also of the general policy under which the Act is being administered. I cannot conceive what possible objection there cart be to the extension as suggested by my hon. and gallant Friend. I suggest words something like this might be accepted, "or any other person qualified to cultivate the holding who is either by marriage or consanguinity related to the landholder." That would bring in all the relations by marriage.

Mr. CLYDE: The difficulty of any proposal of the kind is that you would extend to the existing holder the right to select outside his family the new holder and assignment means for money. The reason why the authors of the legislation in 1911 did not wish to give the landholder the power of constituting the new holder was
to prevent the smallholder getting what might be a right of mortagage when somebody might come forward and he would fall into his grip. That is regarded as unlikely if the selection is inside the family circle, but as likely if it is outside the family circle. 'Therefore, I think the situation is met by the consideration that it is not desirable to give the smallholder power of assignment to anyone except those within the family circle.

Mr. JOHNSTON E: There is the case of the landholder who is unable to work through illness or old age or infirmity, and the only prospect before that man is to drag on a miserable existence, as he is unable to assign his holding. I think the Act ought to be amended to enable a landholder under such circumstances as old age, illness, or infirmity to assign his holding for money to any person fit to cultivate the holding, subject as it would he under the Clause to the approval of the Land Court. Without that approval you might no doubt contemplate some of the evils which have been foreshadowed. You have not met a case of existing hardship such as that I have referred to where a man tries to eke out a miserable existence and is prevented the possibility of assignment to a competnt person.

Captain W. BENN: May I ask the Secretary for Scotland for some enlightenment on tins point. Is it not the fact that the dangers to which the Lord Advocate has referred are properly safeguarded by Section 21, which says that, after intimation to the Land Court and any other party interested, and after such hearing and inquiry as the Court may consider necessary, and should it appear to the Court that such assignment would be reasonable and proper, they have power to grant leave on such terms and conditions as may seem fit. I respectfully suggest that in that Clause there are the proper precautions to avoid any of the dangers suggested, and that, therefore., this is a very useful enlargement contained in the Amendment, and that it is one which should commend itself to the Government.

Colonel GREIG: I am one of those who took part in the discussion on the Bill of 1011, and at that time on a side opposite to the Lord Advocate. I am perfectly certain that this Section was thoroughly discussed to the last inch, and that we were all extremely careful in those days to
see that there should be nothing which would leave a leak in the vessel by which smallholders would disappear. I am convinced that if this apparently very acceptable enlargement takes place you will immediately get a leak through which the whole ship will be swamped. You may have a gombeen man corning along and the occupier may take a mortgage from him, and the very protection which the Act was passed to set up will be swept away. No doubt it may be said the man will have to apply to the Land Court, but there it may be represented that the man is ill, or old, and it may be decided that they will allow him to get rid of the holding. You will have the whole ship swamped by the possibility that this tenure which we protected in every direction may become nothing more or less than an ordinary fee simple. As far as I can see in the last Report, Mr. Justice Kennedy suggested nothing of the kind. Ho was too good a lawyer to do so, as he realised if this were done the whole of our work under the Act of 1911 might be undone. I took a deep interest in this matter at the time of the passing of the Act, and there was nothing which made it more successful than the fact that we had prevented people from getting rid of the protection which the Statute affords. I am sure my hon. Friends opposite misapprehend the effect of their own Amendment, which is really a most dangerous Amendment in its possibilities.

Mr. GARDINER: I am sure that the Lord Advocate does not wish to do anything unfair or unjust. Let me put to him a concrete case and ask his opinion. A man, now nearly seventy years of age, had four sons who helped him to construct buildings and improve his holding until it is now one of the finest small holdings in Scotland. The man was parted from those sons by the great War, and, unfortunately, none of them came back to the father's house and home He is now in the position of being broken-hearted. He has in that holding a value of probably from £200 to £300. He has no relative to pass it on to and under such circumstances would it be fair or reasonable for that man to be dispossessed of that which would help him in his old age? That is an absolutely real case.

Mr. CLYDE: In the case put the holder in question would not be deprived of the value which he or his sons put into the holding, or of the value which his pre-
decessors contributed because if it turns out that through infirmity or old age he cannot continue to keep the holding he gets, under Section 8 of the Crofters Act, full compensation for his own improvement, full compensation for every improvement by his predecessors in title, and, in short, he gets out of it the present value of everything he put into it. It is true that he is not endowed with any proprietary title to the holding itself, but he does get the full family value of the holding—the whole value of the family improvements. It would be very unfair indeed to deprive that particular holder of the value of what he had done. It must not be forgotten that this is not a question of confiscating the value of a man's improvements, or the improvements of those who went before him. That is assured to him. The only question is whether you ought to endow a smallholder with a kind of proprietary right to the holding, which he can assign or hand over to anybody outside the members of his own family.

Mr. HOGGE: Surely my right hon. Friend, who looks at these matters from a very sympathetic point of view, would never dream of not making provision for a case such as has been put to him. This

old man would not get tile compensation for leaving his holding until he either died or left the holding. If he is unable to work, he is on a piece of laud which has been created by his own efforts and by the efforts of his sons, and to the value of which he has contributed. It has an extraordinary sentimental value to that man, as such a piece of land obviously would have. If my right hon. Friend accepted this Amendment, he would enable that old man to make an arrangement with some other person qualified to cultivate the holding, by which he could, for example, live in the house on that holding and end his days there. The other alternative would be that, in his old age, he would be in the position either of finding a home elsewhere with the small income he could derive from his capital. or, in some cases, being driven to the workhouse. That is really what it means in many cases. I respectfully submit to my right hon. Friend that he has not considered the matter in all its aspects, and is leaving out a point which has a very substantial value and which would meet a very substantial difficulty.

Question put, "That the Clause be read a second time."

The House divided: Ayes, 56; Noes, 210.

Division No. 143.]
AYES.
[7.34 p.m.


Acland, Rt. Hon. Francis Dyke
Hall, F. (Yorks, Normanten)
Rose, Frank H.


Adamson, Rt. Hon. William
Harmsworth, Sir R. L. (Caithness-shire)
Short, A. (Wednesbury)


Bell, James (Ormskirk)
Henderson, Rt. Hon. Arthur
Sitch, C. H.


Benn, Capt. W. (Leith)
Hirst, G. H.
Smith, W. (Wellingborough)


Brace, Rt. Hon. William
Irving, Dan
Swan, J. E. C.


Bramsdon, Sir T.
Johnstone, J.
Thomson, T. (Middlesbrough, W.)


Bromfield, W.
Jones, J. (Silvertown)
Thorne, G. R. (Wolverhampton)


Brown, J. (Ayr and Bute)
Kenyon, Barnet
Thorne, W. (Plaistow)


Cairns, John
Lunn, William
Tootill, Robert


Carter, W. (Mansfield)
Maclean, Fit. Hon. Sir D. (Midlothian)
Wallace, J.


Davies, Alfred (Clitheroe)
Mallalieu, Frederick William
Walsh, S. (Ince, Lancs.)


Davison, J. E. (Smethwick)
Murray, Dr. D. (Western Isles)
Wedgwood. Colonel Josiah C.


Edwards, C. (Bedwellty)
Murray, John (Leeds, W.)
Wignall, James


Edwards, Major J. (Aberavon)
Newbould, A. E.
Williams, A. (Consett, Durham)


Galbraith, Samuel
Parkinson, John Allen (Wigan)
Williams, J. (Gower, Glam.)


Graham, D. M. (Hamilton)
Ree, H. Norman
Williams, Cal. P. (Middlesbrough)


Graham, W. (Edinburgh)
Raffan, Peter Wilson



Griffiths, T. (Pontypool)
Rees, Captain J. Tudor (Barnstaple)
TELLERS FOR THE AYES.— Major


Grundy, T. W.
Richardson, R, (Houghton)
McKenzie Wood and Mr. Hogge.


Guest, J. (Hemsworth, York)
Roberts, F. O. (W. Bromwich)



NOES.


Agg-Gardner, Sir James Tynte
Beauchamp, Sir Edward
Broad, Thomas Tucker


Ainsworth, Captain C.
Bell, Lt.-Col. W. C. H. (Devizes)
Buckley, Lt.-Colonel A.


Allen, Colonel William James
Bean, Corn. Ian Hamilton (Greenwich)
Bun, Rt. Hon. Sir William James


Ashley, Col. Wilfred W.
Bigiand, Alfred
Burden, Col. Rowland


Atkey. A. R.
Birchall, Major J. D.
Burn, Col. C. R. (Torquay)


Baird, John Lawrence
Bird, Alfred
Campbell, J. G. D.


Baldwin, Stanley
Blades, Sir George R.
Campion, Colonel W. R.


Balfour, George (Hampstead)
Borwick, Major G. O.
Carr, W. T.


Balfour, Sir Robert (Partick)
Boscawen, Sir Arthur Griffith
Casey, T. W.


Banbury, Rt. Hon. Sir Frederick
Boyd-Carpenter, Major A.
Cecil, Rt. Hon. Evelyn (Aston Manor)


Barnett, Major Richard W.
Breese, Major C. E.
Cecil, Rt. Hon. Lord H. (Oxford Univ.)


Barnston, Major H.
Bridgeman, William Clive
Chamberlain, N. (Birm., Ladywood)


Barrand, A. R.
Briggs, Harold
Cheyne, Sir William Watson


Barrie, Charles Coupar (Banff)
Britton, G. B.
Ciay, Captain H. H. Spender


Clyde, James Avon
Hunter-Weston, Lieut.-Gen. Sir A, G
Pollock, Sir Ernest Murray


Ceats, Sir Stuart
Hurst, Major G. B.
Pownall, Lt.-Colonel Assheton


Coon, Sir Cyril
lnskip, T. W. H.
Pratt, John William


Colfox, Major W. P.
Jephcott, A. R.
Prescott, Major W. H.


Calvin, Brig.-General R. B.
Jellett, William Morgan
Pulley, Charles Thornton


Cope, Major W. (Glamorgan)
Jesson, C.
Purchase, H. G.


Cozens-Hardy, Hon. W. H.
Johnson, L. S.
Randles, Sir John Scurrah


Craik, Rt. Hon. Sir Henry
Jones, G. W. H. (Stoke Newington)
Raper, A. Baldwin


Davies, Alfred Thomas (Lincoln)
Jones, Henry Haydn (Merionetn)
Raw, Lieut.-Colonel Dr. N.


Davies, T. (Cirencester)
Jones, J. Towya (Carmarthen)
Reid, D. D.


Davison, Sir W. H. (Kensington)
Kerr-Smiley, Major P.
Renwick, G.


Dean, Com. P. T.
Kinloen-Cooke, Sir Clement
Richardson, Sir Albion (Peckham)


Denniss, E. R. Bartley (Oldham)
Knight, Captain E. A.
Roberts, Sir S. (Sheffield, Ecclesall)


Dewhurst, Lieut.-Commander H.
Knights, Captain H.
Robinson, S. (Brecon and Radnor)


Dockrell, Sir M.
Law, Rt. Hon. A. Bonar
Rodger, A. K.


Doyle, N. Grattan
Lewis, Rt. teen. J. H. (Univ., Wales)
Roundell, Lt.-Colonel R. F.


Duncannon, Viscount
Lewis, T. A. (Pontypridd, Glam.)
Rowlands, James


Du Pre, Colonel W. B.
Lindsay, William Arthur
Samuel, S. (Wandsworth, Putney)


Edwards, J. H. (Glam., Heath)
Lloyd, George Butler
Sassoon, Sir Philip A. G. D.


Elliot, Captain W. E. (Lanark)
Lonsdale, James R.
Scott, A. M. (Glas., Bridgeton)


Eyres-Monsell, Commander
Lorden, John William
Seager, Sir William


Falle, Major Sir Bertram Godfrey
Lort-Williams, J.
Shaw, Hon. A. (Kilmarnock)


FitzRoy, Captain Hon. Edward A.
Loseby, Captain C. E.
Shaw, Captain W. T. (Forfar)


Flannery, Sir J. Fortescue
Lyle-Samuel, A. (Eye, E. Suffolk)
Shortt, Rt. Hon. E. (N'castle-on-T., W.)


Foreman, H.
M'Laren, R. (Lanark, N.)
Smith, Harold (Warrington)


Foxcroft, Captain C.
Macmaster, Donald
Smith, Sir Allan


Fraser, Major Sir Keith
McMicking, Major Gilbert
Sprat, Colonel Sir Alexander


Gardner, E. (Berks, Windsor)
McNeill, Ronald (Canterbury)
Stanley, Col. Hon. G. (Preston)


Geddes, Rt. Hon. Sir A. C. (Bas'gst'ke)
Macpherson, Rt. Hon. James I.
Steel, Major S. Strang


Gibbs, Colonel John Abraham
Macguisten, F. A.
Stephenson, Colonel H. K.


Gilbert, James Daniel
Malone, Col C. L. (Leyton, E.)
Stewart, Gershom


Gilmour, Lieut.-Colonel John
Malone, Major P. (Tottenham, S.)
Sykes, Col. Sir A. J. (Knutsford)


Glyn, Major R.
Marriott, John Arthur R.
Talbot, G. A. (Hemel Hempstead)


Goff, Sir Park
Middlebrook, Sir William
Terrell, G. (Chippenham, Wilts.)


Gregory, Holman
Moles, Thomas
Thomson, F. C. (Aberdeen, S.)


Greig, Colonel James William
Molsan, Major John Elsdate
Townley, Maximilian G.


Gretton, Colonel John
Montagu, Rt. Hon. E. S.
Tryon, Major George Clement


Guest, Maj. Hon. O. (Leic., Loughboro')
Moore, Maj.-Gen. Sir Newton J.
Vickers, D.


Guinness. Lt.-Col. Hon. W. E.(B. St. E.)
Moore-Brabazon, Lieut.-Col. J. T. C.
Ward, Col. L. (Kingston-upon-Hull)


Hacking, Captain D. H.
Morden, Colonel H. Grant
Wardle, Georgo J.


Hailwood, A.
Morrison, H. (Salisbury)
Waring, Major Walter


Hambro, Angus Valdemar
Morrison-Bell, Major A. C.
Wason, John Cathcart


Hanna, G. B.
Mosley, Oswald
Weston, Colonel John W.


Hanson, Sir Charles
Mount, William Arthur
Wheier, Colonel Granville C. H.


Harmsworth, Cecil B. (Luton, Beds.)
Munro, Rt. Hon. Robert
White, Colonel G. D. (Southport)


Haslam, Lewis
Murray, Hon. G. (St. Rollox)
Whitla, Sir William


Henderson, Maj. V. L. (Tradeston, Glas)
Murray, William (Dumtries)
Wild, Sir Ernest Edward


Hennessy., Major G.
Neal, Arthur
Williams, Lt.-Cool. C. (Tavistock)


Henry, Danis S. (Londonderry, S.)
Nicholl, Com. Sir Edward
Willoughby, Lt.-col. Hon. Claud


Higham, C. F. (Islington, S.)
Oman, C. W. C.
Wills, Lt-Col. Sir Gilbert Alan H.


Hohier, Gerald Fitzroy
O'Neill, Capt. Hon. Robert W. H.
Wolmer, Viscount


Hope, Harry (Stirling)
Parker, James
Woolcock, W. J. U.


Hope, James Fitzalan (Sheffield)
Parkinson, Albert L. (Blackpool)
Worthington-Evans, Ht. Hon. Sir L.


Hope. Lient.-Col.-Sir J. (Midlothian)
Pearce, Sir William
Yate. Colonel Charles Edward


Hopkins, J. W. W.
Peel, Col. Han. S. (Uxbridge, Mddx.)
Young, Lt.-Com. E. H. (Norwich)


Hopkinson, Austin (Mossley)
Pennefather, De Fonblanque
Younger, Sir George


Houston, Robert Paterson
Perring, William George



Hughes, Spencer Leigh
Pilditch, Sir Philip
TELLERS FOR THE NOES.—Lord E.


Hunter, Gen. Sir A. (Lancaster)
Pinkham, Lieut.-Colonel Charles
Talbot and Mr. Dudley Ward.

NEW CLAUSE.—(Erection and Maintenance of March Fences.)

Where the Board make any Order under the immediately preceding Section they shall be bound to erect and maintain, or cause to be erected and maintained, to the satisfaction of the landlord of the land comprised in the scheme and of any adjoining land such march fence, or fences, as may be necessary to prevent the stock of the landholder straying beyond the limits of the land comprised in the scheme, any dispute as to the adequacy of such fence or fences to be settled failing agreement by the Land Court.— [Mr. R. McLaren.]

Brought up, and read the first time.

Mr. R. McLAREN: I beg to move, "That the Clause be read a second time."
The main purpose of this Bill, as has been stated on the floor of the House, is
to provide for the settlement of ex-Service men on the land, I am quite sure that all of us in this House, irrespective of party, are very anxious that our boys shall he properly dealt with, and it is evident that something must be done if we want to retain these men when they come back from the War, The purpose of this Clause is to make things better for the whole district in which the holdings are situated,. While it is true that we are anxious to have the boys placed upon the land, it is equally important that we should see that nothing is done which will reduce the valuation of the district. To those of us who have been in the Committee upstairs, it has been evident that a great deal of trouble has arisen on the question of deer
forests. Many hon. Members are of opinion that, whether or not the deer forests go on as usual, it is very necessary that we should have the holdings properly fenced near the deer forests where such land is available. But, while we must provide the holdings for the. men, it is equally important that nothing should be done, if possible, to reduce the valuation of the district, because if the valuation of the district be reduced, then the rates are bound to go up, and we Scottish people see from the newspapers daily that in the whole of the North of Scotland there is a great deal of anxiety about the rates going up so rapidly in connection with education. The Purpose of this Clause is to try, if possible, to keep the value of the deer forest, and, at the same time, provide the necessary holdings for those who undertake to work them. It must be perfectly evident to everyone that if we can fence off the deer forest so that the value will still be retained, and at the same time protect the holding, then I think a great deal has been achieved, and the whole purpose of this Clause is to fence in the holding to prevent the sheep running hither and thither through the deer forest. If the fence should not be sufficient to keep the deer out, I think it, is perfectly plain that, with a little mutual arrangement between the tenant. and the landowner this can be overcome. In some parts of the deer forests sheep have got over the fencing and done damage, and compensation has been given, and no difficulty has arisen. I think, after all, common sense will be exercised to prevent any difficulty; otherwise, we have the Land Court to step in and settle all the difficulties. I believe at the present time the Government provide fencing in order to fence off the cottars' places, and I do not think it would cost very much to the Government to hand over surplus stock from the War to fence off these holdings. I think that, having acquired the land, it would not be a difficult matter for them to arrange so to fence off the holding that the holder would be protected against the sheep running all over the forest, at the same time keeping up the rental of the deer forest. That would give security to the holder, enhance the value of the deer forest, keep up the valuation, and keep down the rates, which is a most important thing.

Sir A. SPROT: I beg to second the Motion.
I submit that this is a perfectly fair and moderate proposal. It is proposed that land shall be taken compulsorily for the formation of small holdings, and the theory of those who make this proposal is that it is up to the Board of of Agriculture to fence in the land which has been taken. It may not be necessary to put a deer-fence, which is an expensive affair, but the fence required is such a one as would prevent the cattle or the sheep of the smallholder from wandering over the adjoining property, which might be a deer forest or a grouse moor. As has been pointed out by the Proposer, the Clause would have the effect of reducing the compensation to be paid for the taking of the land for small holdings. The compensation which would have to be given to the landowner would include compensation for loss of sporting rights, and this fencing which is proposed would have the effect of causing the claim to be less than it otherwise would be.

Mr. CLYDE: I am afraid that it is quite impossible for us to accept this new Clause, for several reasons. If this Clause were passed in the form in which it is proposed, it would put on the Board an imperative obligation in every case to erect, and permanently to maintain. to the satisfaction of the landlord, whatever fencing was required to prevent the landholder's stock straying beyond the limits of the holding. Now that is an exceedingly onerous obligation. I had not in my mind, I confess, until I heard this new Clause moved, that it was meant to apply only, or mainly, to tile case of a deer forest. I would like the House to understand exactly how it does apply, let us say, in the case of a sheep farm. In that -case, if the holding is not to be fenced, the result is that the Board of Agriculture incur bigger liabilities to the neighbouring tenant or the neighbouring owner, and for that reason, because they would incur a bigger bill for compensation, it has been not uncommon for the Board of Agriculture to fence a small holding when the neighbouring property is a sheep farm. Supposing the small holding is a farm with an out-run, that out-run has been frequently fenced against a neighbouring sheep farm, because if you made mill a holding without a fence you would do greater harm, because of the intermixture of stock, than if you fenced it. So they make their choice. But if this thing were to be ap-
plied to the case of a neighbouring deer forest, then one would be faced with this very remarkable result. Apparently we should have to fence the stock of a landholder so that the stock could not stray among the doer. But the deer would be as free as ever to jump that fence and stray among the stock. The fact is that, under present conditions, the cost of fencing a small holding, when the holding is such a one as involves a sheep out-run, is at the present moment completely prohibitive. You may have a small holding with, so to speak, only an isthmus of approach. That is not a common case. In the common case it means miles of fencing, even for a small holding, and to put that as a regular obligation upon the Board of Agriculture is not practicable if these small holdings are to be formed. It must be remembered that compensation for the loss of value of sporting rights is very considerably cut down by this Bill, and it would be, therefore, impossible for us really to set up that compensation in another form by putting an obligation like this in all cases upon the Board of Agriculture. Therefore, I am afraid we cannot accept this Clause. It may be, I dare say, that. under this Clause, as under other Clauses, there will be individual hard cases, but we must legislate for the general case, and, having that case in view, we cannot consent to put, upon the Board of Agriculture an obligation of the character involved in this Clause.

8.0 P. M

Sir G. YOUNGER: I am very sorry the Lord Advocate holds out no kind of prospect in regard to the very serious proposal this Bill makes as to compensation in the case he mentioned. I think it is the duty of the Government to find some way of mitigating the very grave hardship and loss which will happen in certain cases, and it is not too much to ask that some protection of this kind should be given. The Lord Advocate has himself said that in certain cases of sheep-farm it is necessary to erect a fence. But why, I ask, is the adjoining sheep-farm to be protected against the intermixture of stock, and a deer forest is not to be so protected? My right hon. Friend knows perfectly well there is no difference. That entirely takes away the argument of the right hon. Gentleman, and makes it more essential than ever that he should put this case, at all events, as far as he can, in the same position as the other. I am not sure it is much use going to a Division on this question when the Government are not, apparently, prepared to yield in this matter. The
House has been put to a great deal of trouble in dividing, and I do not want to put it to the trouble of another Division, because if the Government chooses to object to the inclusion of this Clause, as they do, of course the result is a foregone conclusion, and I am prepared to accept that for the moment. But I do Say to the Lord Advocate, and with considerable insistence, that something more requires to be done in protecting these people. There are deer forests which have beery created without dispossessing anyone. There are others who have been created, no doubt, by the purchase of land and the dispossession of many of the settlers. For these i have no sympathy whatever, although, on the other hand, there is a good deal of nonsense talked about the matter. But these two. cases are on a wholly different footing. I. do not in the least wish to protect—and I am sure nobody else here does—the man who has bought up land and cleared out the settlers for the purpose of putting deer in their place. But it is extremely hard on the people who have spent a good deal of money over forests which everybody knows are no good for any purpose but deer, that they should be placed in the position of probably losing the whole, or a great bulk, or that expenditure without any kind of compensation. Therefore, this proposal to put a fence here is a very simple one, and one that I think is only a reasonable and fair mitigation.
Question put, and negatived.

NEW CLAUSE.—(AS to Land Within Burgh in Croftinq Counties.)

Notwithstanding anything contained in paragraph (c) of Sub-section (3) of Section twenty-six of the Act of 1911, or in the reference to that paragraph in Sub-section (4) of the said Section, a person may be held, as from and after the commencement of this Act., as existing yearly tenant or a qualified leaseholder, and shall be admissible to registration as a new holder under the Act of 1911 in respect of land within the parliamentary, police, or municipal boundary of any burgh or pore burgh situate in the counties of Argyll, Inverness, floss and Cromarty, Sutherland, Caithness, and Orkney and Shetland.—[Sir D. Maclean.]

Brought up, and read the first time.

Sir D. MACLEAN: I beg to move, "That the Clause be read a second time."
I propose not to take up the time of the House, because I understand my right hon. Friend proposes, substantially, to accept the Amendment.

Mr. CLYDE: Perhaps I ought to say a single word to the House—which I have said privately to the hon. Member for East
Edinburgh—as to the acceptance of this Amendment substantially. I was not quite sure, however, about the precise phraseology, and I should like to say, in respect to tine word "may" ["a person may be held"], that it will not be possible to leave the question as to whether or not these people are to come in optional. I rather think it must be settled one way or the other. I had in my mind that some change of phraseology might be involved, and it may be beyond that word "may" I cannot guarantee against that. Subject to what I have said, and on tire understanding that we may be free to make some other proposal elsewhere, I accept the Amendment.
Question put, and agreed to.
Clause accordingly read a second time, and added to the Bill.

Clause 1.—(Compulsory Acquisition of Land for Purposes of the Small Holding Colonies Acts, 1916 and 1918.)

(1) With the consent of the Secretary for Scotland and the Treasury, land may during the period of two years after the passing of this Act be acquired compulsorily by the Board of Agriculture for Scotland (in tins Act referred to as "the Board") for the purposes of the Small Holding Colonies Acts, 1916 and 1918, and the powers of acquiring land by agreement under those Acts shall be exerciseable during the like period.

(3) The Board shall, in addition to the powers conferred on them by the said Acts, have in relation to all land acquired by them there under, whether before or after the missing of this Act and wherever situated, and in relation to the tenants and small landholders occupying such land, the like powers which they possess in relation to land acquired under the Congested Districts (Scotland) Act, 1897, and in relation to the landholders, cottars and fishermen in that Act mentioned.

Lieut.-Colonel Sir JOHN HOPE: I beg to move, in Sub-section (1), to leave out the word "two" ["period of two years"], and to insert instead thereof the word "three."
This Amendment is to extend the period of the operation of Part I. of the Bill from two to three years. I readily admit that in the corresponding English Act there is a limitation, similarly, in Part I., of two years, but in England, under the existing law, there is the power to create small holdings by purchase. In Scotland at the present moment there is no power of this kind. The Secretary for Scotland himself stated on the Second Reading that the main object of this Bill was to introduce a system of purchase, anyhow for a limited
time, into Scotland in order to facilitate the resettlement of soldiers on the land. This question, was raised in Committee, and tire Secretary for Scotland promised to consider the matter on Report. In Committee I moved that this limitation should be altogether omitted, and that Part II. should become a permanent part of the That was refused. On behalf of lire Labour party an Amendment, was moved to extend the period lo five years. That, again, was refused, or, rather, the Secretary for Scotland said he would reconsider the matter before Report. I now appeal to the representative of tire Government on the Front Bench to, at all events, accept tins very small extension. It is quite impossible adequately to settle the large number of soldiers on the land within two years. It may be urged that if it is found necessary later that an extension can then be made. But why not now? Why come to Parliament again it the thing can be done now, and so finish the settlement of soldiers on the land No extra expense of any sort or kind is involved.

Major W. MURRAY: I beg to second the Amendment.

Mr. CLYDE: When the Bill was in Committee it will be remembered that' the hon. Member for Central Edinburgh made a proposition for an extension of five years. In answer to that the secretary for Scotland undertook to approach the Treasury and see if he could not manage to get Treasury consent to extend the period for the acquirement of land, at any rate, longer than two years, and I think he mentioned three. Two years is the period under the English Act. Since then my right hon. friend has approached the Treasury. He has used his best powers of persuasion to enable him to meet the views so universally expressed in Committee upstairs. I am sorry to say he has had no success. The position is that we are rigidly tied down to the same period as was enforced in the case of the English Bill. Accordingly, I can do nothing at all to meet my hon. and gallant Friend. The Bill, I am afraid, will have to stand as it is, with the two years' limit in it.

Sir J. HOPE: if we pass this Amendment, surely the Treasury cannot overrule the power of this House to extend their own Bill beyond two years? The point does not involve any expenditure. I should like to ask my right hon. and learned Friend's ruling on that point:
Supposing we go to a Division and pass this new Clause, what will be the effect. Will the Treasury hold up the money?

Mr. CLYDE: The effect would be what my hon. and gallant Friend does not, I am sure, want: he would have the satisfaction of wrecking the Bill. I am afraid we cannot work ourselves free of the two years' limit. The question was that of getting money on terms. We got it. The term was two years. The Resolution passed was two years. Unless we can get Treasury consent otherwise we must be bound by that.

Mr. HOGGE: This, however, does not prevent the settlement of soldiers on the land that is acquired. The hon. and gallant Gentleman opposite has given the impression that, somehow or other, it would prevent ex-Service men getting on to the land. This Bill does not acquire land for the period of two years; consequently, the land having been acquired during the period of two years, the process of settling men on that land may go on after the two years if it is not completed. It is well that the general public outside should be aware of that.

Sir J. HOPE: May I ask the Lord Advocate, following the question of the hon. Member for East Edinburgh, whether, after the two years have elapsed, he will be able to use any of this £2,750,000 in the process of settling soldiers on the land?

Mr. CLYDE: The only condition is that the purchase of the land must be made within the two years. There is, as the hon. Member opposite said, nothing in the world to prevent the process of the settlement of the people on that land going on after the expiration of two years—nothing!

Sir J. HOPE: And the expenditure of the £2,000,000!

Mr. CLYDE: I have no doubt of that—expenditure on equipment, and so on.
Amendment negatived.

Major W. MURRAY: I beg to move, after Sub-section (3), to insert
(4) The Board shall further, in addition to the powers conferred on them by the said Acts, have powers to create small farms which shall consist of land, being arable or pastoral or partly arable and partly pastoral, the annual
rent of which shall exceed fifty pounds in mousy but shall not exceed one hundred pounds in money.
We understood in Committee that there was already provision in the Bill for what I am proposing, and that, therefore, my Amendment was unnecessary. I do not, therefore, propose to discuss this Amendment at any length, but if it is referred to, or covered, in Part L of the Bill, it is very vaguely. So with the knowledge and consent of the Secretary for Scotland, I have agreed to move the Amendment this afternoon for the purpose of having the decision made here. We have had a good deal of discussion to-day about the size of small holdings and small farms. This is an attempt to introduce a small farm which would be an economic agricultural unit. Of the two classes of small hodings at present in Scotand, only one can be described as economic, and that really is an ancillary holding where the smallholder has another occupation besides looking after his land. The forty or fifty small acres have, in some cases, been successful, but they have never yet passed through a period of agricultural depression since the formation of many of them. in 19ll. Therefore, it has to be proved whether or not they are actually economically sound. The two-pair-horse farms which I am advocating is the agricultural unit which has been proved to be economically sound. Tile -Interim -Report to the Board of Agriculture for Scotland on the Economics of Small Farms and Small holdings says—page 33—
lf we here insisted rather strongly on the desirability of not generally creating holdings under the one-pair horse standard, or its equivalent, we are equally emphatic as to the desirability of creating what we may call small farms of this kind.
If you go Step or two further on page 41 you will find it is suggested that these small farms should be instituted under a different form of tenure to that which is being put forward this afternoon. Are we going to do something under this Bill which is agriculturally sound? The forty or fifty-acre holding has not been proved to be agriculturally sound. The pair-horse farm is understood to be sound, and I suggest to the right hon. Gentleman that he should in Part I. introduce the pair-horse farm, instead of wasting money upon holdings of forty or fifty acres which are not agriculturally sound. The chief part of this money is going to be spent on colonies. The colony proposal, to which I have no objection in principle, is
more of a Highland than a Lowland matter. When you come down to the Lowlands I am not sure that the colony is wanted, or that it will be popular, or that people would stay for a long time in the colony. If you are not going to have these colonies in the Lowlands, what are you going to have under this Bill? Only small ancillary holdings for which there is very little demand.

Major MCMICKING: I beg to second the Amendment.

Mr. CLYDE: There has already been this afternoon a good deal of discussion on the question whether in the part of this Bill dealing with the system of tender there ought to be in the present measure a provision inserted extending the size of the holdings that are comprehended within that system. As the House remembers the position which my right hon. Friend and myself have taken up was to oppose the extension of the size of the holdings contemplated under the Act of 1911, and regulated by this system of tender. It would not be consistent while we opposo that extension with regard to the 1911 system in one part to accept an extension of the size of the holdings in the case of Part I. of the Bill. As far as possible, Part I. and Part II. ought to have an equal chance, and we cannot give a preference under one part as distinct from the other. What I want particularly to point out to the hon. Member who has moved this Amendment, and the hon. Member who has seconded, is that it happens that there is under Pelt I. of the Bill a certain amount of elasticity which you cannot have under the conditions of the 1911 Act system. If hon. Members will be good enough to look at Clause 7 of this Bill, they will see that power is given to the Board over and above all the other powers it has under the Congested Districts (Scotland) Act, 1897, or the Small Holdings Colonies Acts, 1916 and 1918—
In any case where in their opinion it is necessary or expedient so to do for the better carrying into effect the purposes of those Acts or of this Act.
Further on, in paragraph (b), power is given
to sell, excamb, or let any such land or any right or interest therein.
There is general power to let quite as general as the power to sell, and it is given only if in the opinion of the Board
it is necessary or expedient so to do for the better carrying into erect of the purposes of the Act. Therefore, when the hon. Member thinks it would facilitate the establishment of a colony or colonies to let part of the land they have acquired for a larger farm either as an instruction farm or as a farm which would afford a certain amount of employment, it is within the power of the Board to do so under Section 7. I do not want the House to imagine that that means the general letting of large farms by the Board on land which they have acquired, because it does not; but in a case in which the Board thinks it would help a colony, this enables part of the land to be let as a farm. Of course, it is limited, but to that extent there is a little clasticity in Part II. But, after all, that is not the object of this Bill. The hon. Member said that a 50-acre holding or a £50 rental holding in the south country Would not pay and is not an economic proposition. He wants a farm of £100 rental or 100 acres, which he thinks is an economic proposition, and he would like money spent in that way.

Major W. MURRAY: Or somewhere between those two?

Mr. CLYDE: Yes, something between 50 or 100 acres. I could not accept that Amendment consistent with what has taken place this afternoon. I could not accept it for another reason. The moment you propose to empower the Board as one of their objects, apart from a mere incident, to provide what the hon. Member would call an economic holding, you are deliberately embarking on a policy in which the Board is to compete with other owners of land in providing tenancies which are self-supporting and, therefore, commercial. It may be desirable to do it, but it is a complete departure from policy. It is not the object of the Act of 1911 or of the Crofters Act or of this Bill. This Bill has been brought forward to accomplish the objects of the Act of 1911, namely, to provide for small people small holdings which, under existing conditions, you could not expect or, at least, you do not actually get ordinary proprietors to equip and provide. Therefore, I am afraid that I cannot accept this Amendment, but, if it be a small consolation, I can offer, incidental to what the Board does under Part I., that if it tends to further the main purpose of the Bill there may be the letting of one or more larger farms on part of the land which the Board has taken for the purpose of establishing small holdings.

Sir J. HOPE: I regret that the Lord Advocate does not see fit to accept this Amendment, and I do not quite understand his last few remarks. I rather gathered that he stated that the whole of this Bill was not intended to provide economic agricultural holdings for anyone, but only to improve the existing status and provide ancillary holdings. I understood that the policy of the Government and the intention of this Bill was, as far as possible, to provide for the settlement of ex-soldiers on economic holdings.

Mr. CLYDE: I hope that I did not lay myself open to misconception. When I spoke of an uneconomic holding, I meant one for which you could not get the equipment on the ordinary free conditions, but which you have to provide very largely through the Board of Agriculture by the expenditure of their money. I did not for a moment mean, when the smallholder was established at his fair rent and with his equipment provided by the Board of Agriculture on their terms, that he was not to find himself able to pay his way.

Sir J. HOPE: I still do not quite understand, but the question is whether a holding of 50 acres, even if there be no rent at all, will be sufficient in many cases to keep the ex-soldier. I regret that the Lord Advocate has not found himself able to give a little greater elasticity in the interests of the ex-soldier for which Part I. was specially intended. However, I suppose that we cannot take the matter to a Division, and we can only hope that the elasticity which the Lord Advocate says exists to some extent will prove sufficient to give the ex-soldier a chance.

Dr. MURRAY: I have a great deal of sympathy with the objects and remarks of hon. Gentlemen opposite, but this Act is intended for smallholders, and I am afraid that this Amendment would cripple the formation of small holdings throughout the country. Considering the object of this Bill, I think that it would be an unfair strain upon the finances to finance these small farms.

Lieut.-Commander WiLLIAN1S: There is a very distinct difference between the right hon. Gentleman's idea of an economic rent and a fair rent. Is the fair rent going to be charged for these holdings at a lower rate than what one might call an economic rent?

Mr. CLYDE: That raises the oft-engaged in discussion as to what precisely is a fair
rent. I am not going to attempt to define it. I referred to an uneconomic rent as being a rent less than that which could be regarded as an economic rent.
Amendment negatived.

CLAUSE 3.—(Procedure for Compulsory Acguisition of Land, and Entry on Land to be Acquired.)

(1) For the purpose of the compulsory acquisition of land under the foregoing provisions of this Act, the provisions of the First Schedule to this Act shall have effect.
(2) Where an Order for the compulsory ac quisition of land has been duly made under the provisions of this Act, then at any time after a notice to treat has been served the Board may, after giving not less than fourteen days' notice to each owner, lessee, and occupier of the land or such part thereof as is specified in the notice, enter on and take possession of the land without previous consent or compliance with Sections eighty-three to eighty-eight of the Lauds Clauses Consolidation (Scotland) Act, 1845, but subject to the payment of the like compensation for the land of which possession is taken and interest on the compensation awarded as would have been payable if those provisions had been complied with.

Sir G. YOUNGER: I beg to move, at the end of Sub-section (1), to insert
(2) No Order for the Compulsory acquisition of land to be made under the provisions of this Act shall authorise the acquisition of any land which at the date of the Order forms part of any Park, or of any home farm attached to and Usually occupied with a mansion house if the Land is required for the amenity or convenience of the mansion house, or of any land which at, that dote forms part of any garden or pleasure ground, or which is woodland not wholly Sur-rounded by or adjacent to land acquired by the Board under this Act.
There is no intention, of course, to introduce a Clause to prevent the Board buying a whole estate, but it is desirable as in the English Act that there Should be a limitation, and I hope that my right hon. and learned Friend will be able to give the an assurance on the point. I move the Amendment in order to ask how the matter stands.

Sir J. HOPE: I beg to second the Amendment. It is drafted with the object of putting the law in Scotland in precisely the same condition as time law in England. Under the original English Act of 1908 there were considerably more limitations on the acquirement of land, and these were amended by Section 16 of the Land Settlement Facilities Act of this year, limiting the exceptions. The object of this Amendment is to put Scotland exactly in the same position as England. It does not in any way prevent the purchase of a whole estate. No one objects to that, but one
does object to the purchase of a part, say the home farm, which is necessary for the amenity and convenience of the estate.

Mr. CLYDE: It will be recollected that this particular Amendment relates to the proceedings under Part I. of the Bill. Under that part of the Bill the power of interference with land can only be exercised through the medium of purchase, and it may be compulsory purchase. If it be voluntary purchase, of course all difficulty disappears. If it be compulsory purchase, then it can only be under the terms which are provided partly in the Acquisition of Land Act and with regard to the remainder in the Land Clauses Acts. If, therefore, the Board of Agriculture were to select for purchase a piece of an estate which affected, let us say, the mansion house or the amenity of the estate, and did not take the whole of the estate, they would have to pay full compensation for it without qualification. I should imagine it would be under 'very extraordinary circumstances that the Board of Agriculture would dream -of making the purchase on the most costly and wasteful terms, which, of course, they would do if they took the park and left the mansion, or if they interfered with the home farm and deprived the mansion house of that advantage. But we do not think it necessary to imitate the provisions in the English Act about this matter. We think it far better to leave to the Board of Agriculture complete power to buy the whole or any part of an estate, provided that in both cases they are saddled with the obligation of paying full compensation for all they take and for any damage they do. If any consequential damage were done by way of settlement, or of injury to the rest of the estate, they would be required to pay compensation in the same way as a railway company, the only difference being that under the Acquisition of Lands Act there are not the old Land Clauses Arbitration Courts. lint there would be complete right of compensation for any injury done. In these circumstances we do not see the slightest need for restricting the powers of the Board.

Sir G. YOUNGER: But is the Land Court bound to assess that compensation under the terms of the Lands Clauses Act? My impression is that it is not.

Mr. DEPUTY-SPEAKER: Order, order !

Sir G. YOUNGER: I am exercising my right of reply.

Mr. DEPUTY-SPEAKER: I did not understand that the, hon. Baronet was exercising his right of reply. He was, as I thought, asking question.

Sir G. YOUNGER: At my rate. I have exhausted my right Low, and I cannot speak again.

Mr. CLYDE: The question can be answered in the shortest possible way. If the hon. Baronet will be good enough to look at Sub-section (2) of the First Schedule of the Bill he will see that orders for compulsory acquisition will -incorporate the Lands Clauses Acts (except the provisions thereof relating to the sale of superfluous land) and Sections 70 to 78 of the Railways Clauses Consolidation (Scotland) Act, 1845, dealing with minerals and mineral rights.

Sir D. MACLEAN: On the point of Order which was raised just now. Of course, the Rules are rather difficult to follow, but if my recollection serves me right the new Rules do give power to the Mover of any Amendment, or of a new Clause, on Report to speak as often as he can catch the eye of the Chair in regard to the particular Amendments or Motion before the House at the time. There is a good deal of misapprehension on this, and, perhaps you will riot mind informing us what the exact position is?

Mr. DEPUTY-SPEAKER: It is correct that the Mover of an Amendment, on the Report stage, can speak more than once.

Sir G. YOUNGER: I thought I had only the right of reply.

Sir D. MACLEAN: That is altered.

Mr. DEPUTY-SPEAKER: This applies only to the Mover and not to the Seconder.

Sir D. MACLEAN: And also, if my recollection serves me right, it applies to the Minister in charge of the Bill.

Mr. DEPUTY-SPEAKER: That is the general practice.

Sir D. MACLEAN: But it is specifically stated as a right under tie new Standing Order. I took a considerable part in the Debate on this in the early part of the Session, and I remember, in view of the limitations which were placed on debate on the Report stage and in view of the
power given to the Chair to select Amendments, this right was granted as a concession to the House, namely, that the Mover of a Motion either by way of Amendment or of a now Clause, should have the right as often as he caught the eye of the Chair to speak, and that should also apply to the Minister in charge of the Bill.

Mr. DEPUTY-SPEAKER: The Standing Order states that "on the Report stage the rule against speaking more than once shall not apply to the Member in charge of the Bill or to the Mover of any Amendment or new Clause in respect, of that Amendment or new Clause."

Sir G. YOUNGER: I did rise to put a question, and I believed I was exhausting what I took to be my right of speaking again.
Amendment negatived.

CLAUSE 6—(Duty of Board with Respect to Sale or Lease of Land.)

Major MURRAY: I beg to move, to add the following new Sub-sections:
() A tenant of a holding or small farm provided by the Board on land acquired by the board who has been in occupation thereof for a period of not less than six years shall, on notice of his desire to purchase the holding or small farm being given to the Board at any time before the tenant has received notice to quit, be entitled to require the sale to him of the holding or small farm at the expiration of one month from the date of the notice at the then value of the holding or small farm exclusive of any increase of the value thereof due to any improvement executed thereon by and at the expense of the tenant, and thereupon the Board shall sell the holding or small farm to the tenant accordingly unless the Board obtain the consent of the Secretary for Scotland to the requirements of the tenant being refused by the Board.
() The value of the holding or small farm shall in default of agreement be determined by an arbiter appointed by the Reference Committee for Scotland.
The object is to give ex-Service men in Scotland who will become smallholders the same rights in regard to purchasing their holdings which are given to ex-Service men under the English Act. When this matter was before the Committee upstairs there appeared to be some difficulty as to allowing this right to be exercised by one member of a colony, and I have therefore, in amending the proposal, tried to follow as far as possible the words of the English Act. Hon. Members will see that in the last lines of the Amendment it is laid down that the request. of the smallholder to purchase his holding may he refused by the
Board with the consent of the Secretary for Scotland, and I think that that safeguards sufficiently the rights of other members of the colony.

Sir J. HOPE: I beg to second the Amendment. I think the House will agree that Scottish ex-soldiers should be in as good a position as English ex-soldiers as regards settlement on the land. If they desire to purchase their holdings and can find the money to do so, it does not seem too much to ask that they should have the right, subject to the veto of the Secretary for Scotland. Under the Amendment the Secretary for Scotland can refuse tine right if it is suggested that the purchase by one tenant would spoil or interfere with the whole scheme for a large colony of smallholders. If the soldiers are satisfied and are getting on well on their holdings, they would naturally wish to purchase them if possible. If they can, then we shall avoid all questions as to selling them, and as to the persons to whom the small holdings may be assigned or left, which are questions we discussed early in the evening.

Mr. R. McLAREN: I have great pleasure in supporting the Amendment. The same principle is adopted in the English Act. It is of the utmost importance that the holder of a small holding should have the power to purchase if he has a mind to do so. If the holder knows that within six years he may purchase for himself, he will take good care to improve it in such a way as to make it of the utmost value. At the same time, he ought to be protected from having anything extra charged against the price in respect of any improvements he may have made during the six years. If the matter is settled on those lines it will be an incentive to him to do the best for the land. With that purpose in view he will become a far better landholder than he would otherwise be. I see no reason why, if he he is able to purchase the land, he should not have the option of doing so. It would be a good thing for himself and a good thing for the country. Seeing that the ex-soldier has that privilege under the English Act., it would not be a bad thing to extend it to Scotland.

Mr. MUNRO: I quite recognise that the framers of this Amendment have had in mind in putting it upon the Paper on the Report stage the arguments I ventured to
use upstairs against the Amendment as then framed, and have sought to bring it into line with the arguments I then used. It has now been brought into line with the corresponding Section in the English Act, subject to one or two small alterations which I shall point out. In particular, it makes the Secretary for Scotland the final judge in the matter. One of my objections to the Amendment. proposed upstairs was that it gave the right to the smallholder to say to the Board, whether the Board were willing or not, "I must have this holding, I desire to purchase it, and whether you desire that I should purchase it or not, I should have the right to do so." I thought that was an objectionable position in which to place the Board. I also find that hon. Members have placed at the end of this proposal a provision that the Secretary for Scotland shall have the last word in the matter. That gets over the objection to which I have just referred. I would point out to my hon. Friends one or two alterations, subject to which I should be prepared to accept the Amendment. In the first place, the words "or small farm" in the first line of the Amendment would have to disappear. That follows from what the House has now determined as regards small farms. In the second place, the words "or small farm" in the second line would have to disappear. Indeed, the words "or small farm" would have to go out in each instance. I would make another suggestion to my hon. Friends, which I hope they will accept. The last part of the Amendment proposes that
The value of the holding or small farm shall in default of agreement be determined by an arbiter appointed by the Reference Committee for Scotland.
That provision does not fit in with the other provisions we have inserted in this Bill. I would suggest that, instead of the arbiter being appointed by the Reference Committee, the appeal in cases of dispute should be settled by the Land Court. Subject to that alteration, and the deletion of the words "or small farm" where they occur, I should be prepared to accept the Amendment.

Major MURRAY: I am perfectly willing to substitute the Land Court for the Reference Committee.
Amendments made to proposed Amendment: Leave out the words "or small farm" [in six places]. — Major W. Murray.]
Leave out the words "arbiter appointed by the Reference Committee for Scotland," and insert instead thereof the words "the Land Court."—[Mr. Munro.]
Question proposed. "That the proposed words, as amended, be there inserted in the Bill."

Sir D. MACLEAN: This a very important Amendment Which has brought into the Bill a fresh principle. As I understand the Acts at present on the Statute Book, the idea of purchase has over and over again been specifically excluded, and here we have for the first time this new change almost in principle. I hope the Board of Agriculture will very carefully exercise the powers which are given to it in this Clause as it at present stands by way of a check on the general policy of the Acts being reversed. There may be specific cases in which it is very desirable that the multiplication of smallholders owning the holdings should be increased. We have an English precedent. Perhaps my right hon. Friend might be able to give us some information whether, so far as he has collated all the experience there is, it is working satisfactorily. I should like an assurance from my right hon. Friend that the general policy which has hitherto underlain all tile Acts dealing with small holdings in Scotland should be very carefully considered when the Board of Agriculture under his direction exercises the powers which are given to it under this Clause.

Mr. RAFFAN: I am sure the right hon. Gentleman will agree that the alteration which is now being made alters to some extent the entire character of the Bill and the entire character of action with regard to small holdings in Scotland. I should like to press for some indication as to the policy which is likely to be pursued in regard to this Amendment. It appears to me that on a strict reading of the Clause as proposed it would practically be the duty of the Secretary for Scotland to assent to these sales unless there were some special circumstance in the particular case that rendered it inexpedient to do so. I should like to be, informed whether it is intended to exercise a considerable and a real discretion in this matter, or whether in every case in which you are satisfied as to the financial soundness of the purchase it would be your intention to grant permission to purchase. I have had a good deal of experience in connection with the administration of the
9.0 P.M.
Small Holdings Acts in England. This power has been practically useless. I should be very much surprised to learn that 3 per cent. of the smallholders have expressed any desire for purchase. Something like 97 percent. of those who have de- sired small holdings have been content with security of tenure, and have not ex- pressed a desire to become the purchasers of their holdings.

Major W. MURRAY: In my own Constituency I have several times received representations strongly in favour of my Amendment.

Mr. RAFFAN: I am not making any statement with regard to what opinion may be in the hon. and gallant Gentle-man's constituency. I am stating the experience of the Small Holdings Committee formed by the county councils in England and Wales. I think it is very dangerous to encourage this desire unless with proper safeguards. In ordinary cases the smallholder's capital is much better employed in developing las small holding than it would be in sinking money on the Land In every country where this system obtains the. danger is that the mortgagee simply takes the place of the landlord and after you have set up with great difficulty this system of small holdings, which is intended to give the small man a chance of settling down at a fair rent, which could not otherwise be obtained, and in giving equipment with the assistance of State credit, which could not otherwise be obtained, you may find in the next generation that all your work is undone because these men, having become purchasers, are able to mortgage their holdings and become slaves to the mortgagee perhaps to a greater extent than they have ever been to the landlord. If the right hon. Gentleman can assure us that he will keep this consideration very steadily in his mind and that consent will only be given in really suitable cases where he thinks these evils will not arise, that would to some extent allay my apprehension. But if, as the language of the Clause seems to convey, he intends to exercise a veto, this may become a very dangerous departure.

Sir D. MACLEAN: What will be the effect of the purchase of a holding? Will it cease to he a small holding and be open to fall into a large farm and would all
the rights and privileges and peculiar characteristics of a small holding disappear at the option of the purchaser?

Mr. MUNRO: I think my right. hon. Friend and the hon. Member (Mr. Raffan) have not fully observed that we are here dealing with Part I. and not Part II. of the Bill. They have said that the idea of purchase is foreign to Part II of the Bill which deals with the Small Landholders Act. But we are dealing with the Small Colonies part of the Bill and the House has passed the first words of Clause 6 which confer upon the Board the entire discretion of either selling or letting, at any price or rent which they think proper, any land with which they are furnished. Sale is the domestic atmosphere of the part of the Bill with which we are now dealing. Under the earlier part of Clause 6 the Board has power to say in any case where it thinks proper, land may be let or sold. In the Amendment which is now proposed the matter will be subject to the veto of the Secretary for Scotland for the time being.

Mr. RAFFAN: Is not that meant in practice only to apply to the sale of surplus land?

Mr. MUNRO: No, I do not think that my hon. Friend was present at the earlier stages of the Bill, or he would not have asked that question. The scheme of this part is that we provide a certain amount of money£2,500,000 or £12,750,000. In virtue of that money the Board may either sell to a smallholder or let to a smallholder at its discretion. We have nothing to do with the Small Landholders Act. We are here dealing with a Clause which sets out by saying that the Board at its full discretion may either sell or let the land which it purchases to smallholders. It is the sole judge as to whether the land shall be sold or let, and as to the price or the rent. It seems a very small step to take, if the man to whom the land be let desires after six years to purchase, that he may purchase assuming that he can get the consent of the Secretary for Scotland. There is nothing in this Amendment foreign to the scheme of this part of the Bill. A similar proposal has been sanctioned by Parliament in the recent English Bill, and the corresponding man in England has the same right which it is proposed now to confer on the Scottish smallholder. I am sorry
that I cannot tell my right hon. Friend how the particular provision of the English Act is worked—

Sir D. MACLEAN: The point does not arise.

Mr. MUNRO: No doubt the position is safeguarded, and even the discretion of the Board may be reviewed by the Minister, who is, after all, responsible for any decision which he may make in the matter.

Mr. GARDINER: On reconsideration of the whole subject, instead of opposing I would now approve of the proposal. I do so possibly for a reason which some of my Friends will not altogether appreciate. There is no doubt that security of tenure whether in small holdings or large holdings is the essential, but I do not expect for a single moment that this option will be exercised very often. There will, however, be special circumstances in which it might be advisable that a smallholder should purchase his holding, and therefore I trust that the principle that applies to the smallholder will be extended one day to the large holder, and that we shall all be able to purchase our farms if we so desire.
Question put, and agreed to.

CLAUSE 9.—(Amendment of Section 7 of Act of 1911.)

For Sub-sections (8), (9), (10) and (11) of Section seven of the Small Landholders (Scotland) Act, 1911 (in this Act referred to as the Act of 1911), there shall be substituted the following Sub-sections:

(Constitution of Small Holdings.)

(8)—(a)Where the Board are satisfied that there is a. demand for small holdings and that suitable land is available for that purpose, it shall be the daty of the Board to prepare a scheme for the constitution of one or more new holdings on such land, to be occupied by new holders upon such terms and conditions not inconsistent with the Landholders Acts as the Board think reasonable:

Provided that in considering the relative suitability of land the Board shall include consideration of the probable effect of a scheme upon the burden of rates in the locality concerned.

(9) Where the Board intend to prepare such a scheme they shall give notice of their intention to the landlord of any land which is to be comprised therein, and when a landlord has received such notice it shall not be lawful for him, save with the consent of the Board, to let or to enter into any agreement for letting such land or any part thereof until the Board have made an Order confirming the scheme, or have abandoned the same:

Provided that—

(a) such disability shall not in any case continue fir a longer period than six months from t he date of notice, and
(b) for any loss sustained by a landlord, tenant, or occ from the operation of this Sub-section, the Board small pay to him such Compensation as may be agreed or as may be determined, failing agreement, by the Land Court on the application of either party.

(10) When tile Board have prepared a scheme under this section they shall intimate the prepared scheme to Lie tenant and occupier of any land compensation therein, and shall give to such landlord, tenant and occupier, an opportunity of considering the scheme and of making representations con[...]ning the same to the Board, and after giving to all persons interested an opportunity of being, heard may, with the consent of the Secretary for Scotland, make an Order co[...]g the scheme, in whole or in part, and with of without modification, or may abandon the scheme

(b) The compensation payable under this Subsection shall not include—

(i) any allowance on account of the constitution of new holdings being compulsory;
(ii) any compensation for injury dune to or depreciation in lie seing value of the land comprised in the scheme, or of any estate whereof such land forms part, except in so far as tire same arises from injury done to or depreciation in the letting value of the land or estate; or
(iii) any compensation for injury done to the value of such land or estate as a sporting subject in so far as such value arises from the withholding of the land or estate from its full possible use as an agricultural or pastoral subject.

(c) For tire purpose of this Sub-section any benefit or relief resulting to a landlord or to any other person in consequence of and directly attributable to the constitution of new holdings under the scheme open the one hand shall be set against any damage of injury done to him as aforesaid upon the other hand.

(e)—(i) Where any compensation has been awarded and the amount thereof determined by the Land Court under this Sub-section, the Board may at any time within two months after such determination, resolve to abandon the scheme and withdraw the Order, paying to any person any expenses reasonably incurred by him in connection with the making of the Order or the claim for compensatin. as such expenses may, failing. agreement, be determined by the Land Court on the application of either party.

(ii) Subject to the foregoing provision. every Order made by the Board for the constitution of new holdings shall be recorded in the Landholders Holdings Book, and shall thereupon have effect and 'be enforceable in like manner as an Order of the land Court so recorded.

Major M. WOOD: I beg to move, to leave out the words
Provided that in considering the relative suitability of land the Board shall include consideration of the probable effect of a scheme upon the burden of rates in the locality concerned.
In view of the ruling we have had we may take it that this proviso is intended to facilitate the settlement of soldiers on the land. But it is difficult to see how it can have that effect. This Amendment was carried in Committee by a narrow majority of two, and it is not surprising that we should challenge the decision of the Committee even on that. ground alone. We know perfectly well that if small holdings are going to be set up in the numbers Which we all hope for we are going to encroach upon the deer forests. The Deer Forests Royal Commission, which reported in 1895, stated that they were then 1,782,785 acres of land within deer forests which were capable of being utilised for small holdings, and all our information goes to show that since 1895 that acreage has very materially increased. We know perfectly well therefore that a great deal of the land which is going to be taken to constitute small holdings must he taken from deer forests. We know, therefore, that the rat cable value in these eases will practically always go down. This question was raised in Committee by the right hon. Baronet (Sir G. Younger), who proposed an Amendment to the effect that in considering the suitability of the land due regard shall be had by the Board to the possibility of an increase in the local rates payable by the ratepayers in the district, and so on.

Sir G. YOUNGER: You are wasting time.

Major WOOD: The Secretary for Scotland expressed the opinion that the Amendment in that form—whether the right hon. Baronet intended it or not—would have a crippling effect upon the process of settling smallholders. Then the Lord Advocate proposed an alternative form of words which are the words now in the Clause, and which I propose to strike out. Immediately the hon. Baronet (Sir G. Younger) said, "That is precisely what I want, but it is expressed in much better language."

Sir G. YOUNGER: Hear, hear.

Major WOOD: I agree with the hon. Baronet that the effect of the two Amendments is exactly the same, and I cannot understand what there is in the latter Amendment to make it so innocuous if the first one was so bad that it could not be accepted by the Government. So far as I can see, the blessed word which is supposed to distinguish the second Amend-
ment from the first is the word "relative." Over and over again in speeches not only from members of the Government, but from their supporters; we have heard that the question was the consideration of a case or cases where there were two available sites, and the proviso which was accepted was only a direction to the Board of Agriculture that they were to consider in a ease of that kind which scheme of the two would have the less effect on the rates, and take that scheme. If that is the case why should they not have put in that order two eases? What would happen in the case of their being only one particular site available in the district?

G. YOUNGER: They would take it, of course.

Major WOOD: That is what the ion. Baronet may think, and I do not see how the Board of Agriculture would be bound to take that view of the proviso. Supposing there was only one piece of land in the North of Sutherland, and the Board of Agriculture say that they have to consider the relative suitability of the lamb and they are to include the consideration of the probable effect of the scheme upon the burden of the rates. What are they to do? They are bound to consider it and compare it with schemes in other parts of the country, because that is the only way in which they could give effect to a proviso of this kind. They are bound to consider that when Parliament put the proviso into time Bill they meant it no have sonic real meaning and not to be merely put in for padding. Tire Secretary for Scotland said that it was a harmless Amendment. If it was a harmless Amendment, why should it be put in? We have had enough experience of litigation over the interpretation of Clauses in Acts of Parliament which were inserted as being harmless, and I hope that if all that can be said for tile present proviso is that it is a [...]less proviso that it. will be withdrawn. I under-stand the Government have taken a somewhat different view on this matter from what they took in Committee, and I. am not surprised, as the result of a storm of protest in Scotland. There is no doubt the proviso will have only one effect, and that is that it will prevent land being taken from deer forests and being turned into small holdings. I am quite certain that if in any one case it turned out that consideration of rating prevented land from being turned from deer forests to small holdings for soldier's, there would be a
storm of protest which would turn out any Government. With regard to the question of rates, it must not be understood that we who object to this proviso are unmindful of the serious problem which might be created in the Highlands by the taking of land which is of high rateable value and turning it into small holdings, thus decreasing the rateable value. But that is a different problem altogether—a principle which can and ought to be settled in a different way.

Dr. MURRAY: I beg to second the Amendment.
The hon. Baronet (Sir G. Younger) said that we were wasting time. If anybody is responsible for wasting time, it is the hon. Baronet. As an old Parliamentary hand he took advantage of the engaging innocence of the Lord, Advocate in Committee, and got him into such a mess that all this trouble has arisen. The hon. Baronet had what he called a crude Amendment down, and afterwards the Lord Advocate very generously produced a form of Amendment which would give more artistic expression to the hon. Baronet's dream.

Mr. DEPUTY-SPEAKER: Will the hon. Member come to the Amendment?

Dr. MURRAY: Yes, I am coming to it. 1n order to prevent the waste of time in future, I appeal to the Lord Advocate to learn a lesson and never again accept an Amendment from the hon. Baronet. I do not know how the hon. Baronet has discovered that the Government will not accept this Amendment. We have no information on the subject. However, as I understand this Amendment will not be accepted, I will say nothing further beyond congratulating the Government and the Lord Advocate upon the return to their first love in this matter, and finally rejecting the Amendment of the hon. Baronet.

Mr. MUNRO: The proviso which was inserted has been a subject of considerable misapprehension, both in Committee and in the House, and the subject of gross misrepresentation outside. The suggestion has been made, and repeated to-night, that the acceptance of this proviso was due to a sort of cabal which had been arranged between the Lord Advocate and the hon. Member for the Ayr Burghs. All I can say is that my hon. Friend opposite is under a delusion, and, if it is any interest to him, I can tell him that the Amendment which was eventually accepted was prepared on
my instructions in the Scottish Office on that particular morning before the Committee met, with a view to accepting tire Amendment in the particular terms in which it was accepted.

Dr. MURRAY: I never suggested anything about collusion in a cabal.

Mr. MUNRO: The hon. Member said that I described the Amendment as harmless. That is perfectly true, because if it remains in the Bill there will not be one less holding constituted or set up in Scotland. The only question is, Was the Board of Agriculture to consider as between two pieces of land whether in the one instance the rates would be raised? One of the two pieces of land would no doubt be selected and, therefore, the insertion of this proviso would not result in one small holding less being constituted in Scotland. I greatly deplore the senseless, and, I might almost say, the dishonest, agitation which has taken place with regard to this. When in Edinburgh I saw a poster carried about the streets, "Exclusion of deer forests from the Scottish Land Bill." I put it to this House and to my right hon. Friend (Sir D. Maclean), Is that fair or proper criticism? Who suggested that deer forests should be excluded? Certainly I did not. It was the subject of a large meeting in Edinburgh, and I have received a good deal of correspondence about it, to which I have ventured to reply in the public Press. I want to make it perfectly clear that in accepting this Amendment, as I propose to do, I am not in the least yielding to the storm w hid, has raged outside, but I am proposing to show, by acceptance of it, that the storm was utterly without justification and flint it is quite immaterial to the Government or to anyone who agrees with me Whether this Amendment remains in tile Bill or is deleted. It is an utterly immaterial Amendment one way or the other.

Sir D. MACLEAN: I do not think there is any occasion for mutual recriminations with regard to this. I do not know at all what happened in Scotland with regard to the matter. If it has been carried so far as to refer to the exciusion of deer forests, I think it has been unfair. My right hon. Friend thinks it is a harmless Amendment. I thought it was harmful, and to that extent I differ from him. As he thinks it is harmless, if it is withdrawn that is the end of the whole thing. Let us go on to the next business.

Sir G. YOUNGER: As I am supposed to be the villain of the piece, I would say that I entirely approve of the action of the Secretary for Scotland. Indeed, in Committee I offered to have the Amendment withdrawn before we voted upon it, if it was thought to have the effect which has been so shamefully misrepresented outside by Mr. Pringle and people of that description. They have been imputing to people motives which no one for a single moment entertained. An agitation on the question of deer forests is very easily raised in Scotland, and they knew that, but if they think they are going to resuscitate the Liberal party in Scotland with that sort of flimsy statement they are greatly mistaken.
Amendment agreed to.

Mr. MUNRO: I beg to move, at the end of substituted Sub-section (8), to insert
(c) Where the Board are satisfied that there is not available on the land on which the new holdings are to be constituted a supply of water sufficient for the holding, they may include in the scheme provision for taking and conveying from or through any part of the estate whereof such land forms part such supply of water as may be necessary for the new holdings and is not required for the remainder of the estate; and for the purposes of this Section any land from or through which such supply of water is to be taken or conveyed shall be deemed to be are Comprised in the scheme.

There was a proposal, with regard to water supply made in Committee upstairs, which I was unable to accept. I assured the hon. Member for East Edinburgh (Mr. Hogge) that I would endeavour before the Report stage to find words to give effect to what he had in mind. The result is to be found in the Amendment now moved.

Sir J. HOPE: I beg to move, as an Amendment to the proposed Amendment, after the word "not" ["new holdings and is not required for"], to insert the words "or may reasonably be expected not to be."

Sir G. YOUNGER: I beg to second the Amendment to the proposed Amendment. I have no doubt that the Secretary for Scotland will accept these words. Under the Government proposal the right hon. Gentleman not only takes the water but also takes the land over which he carries the water, and that may be a very considerable distance, and in some cases it might constitute a very considerable interference with a property. There ought to be some consideration given for it.

Sir D. MACLEAN: I hope the Secretary for Scotland will not accept these words.
The meaning of the Clause is perfectly clear. Perhaps the hon. Member who moved the Amendment to the Amendment will explain to us further what is in his mind with regard to it. The Clause was already considered by two gentlemen who had exceptional experience with regard to these matters. What are the dangers which the hon. Gentleman fears, and which it is to be presumed are to be safeguarded by this Amendment?

Mr. G. MURRAY: I wish to support this Amendment, because I think that we ought to have regard to the matter not only from the point of view of small holdings, but also as to housing areas as wed. If we look at the Amendment of the Secretary for Scotland there is very little doubt, in my opinion, that he had not in his mind the question of the erection of new houses on the estates to be dealt with. It is impossible to say, whilst housing schemes are in embryo, to know what houses will be required upon the estates. Until we know what is in front of us in connection with houses, I do not think anything should be included in this Bill which would preclude the possibility of making provision for water for houses that may have to be erected.

Mr. MUNRO: I am afraid I cannot accept the Amendment as framed. In the first place, I am advised that the words as they stand do not exclude the consideration of reasonable future needs, and furthermore, I am advised that the words proposed are not really quite ample for the purpose for which they are designed. Needs for small holdings are needs which are immediate and ought to be taken into consideration. At the same time, I appreciate what has been said as to future needs of housing, for example. However, I will give my hon. and gallant Friend the assurance that I will re-examine this matter again before the Bill goes to another place, and consider whether any further words are required to make it quite clear that not only present needs but also the future needs of the locality should be considered in tins matter. I agree with my right hon. Friend (Sir D. Maclean) that one must really, in interpreting these words, insert the adverb "reasonably." I am quite willing to consider the matter with a view to remedying any defect, if defect there be, in the wording of the Clause as it stands, though I am advised there is no defect and probably no Amendment may be necessary.

Mr. GARDINER: May I ask this question? There is mention about the estate on which the holding is situated. It is quite possible there might be a magnificent water supply on an adjoining estate. Would it be possible to tap that water supply for this purpose or must it be from the estate on Which the holding is situated?

Mr. HOGGE: I hope that the right hon. Gentleman will not be unduly impressed by the argument about the needs of housing schemes on these particular areas. Everybody who knows anything at all about small holdings in Scotland knows that there is not likely to be any huge building development in the neighbourhood of any 'successful small holding schemes. The one thing that is most necessary for the development of holdings is land. The Amendment of the right hon. Gentleman is quite satisfactory to us, and I hope he will not be induced to make any loophole by which water may be denied to small holdings for the possible future need for some ten or fifteen or twenty years ahead.

Lieut.-Colonel MURRAY: I think the point of my hon. Friend (Mr. Gardiner) as to whether water can be taken from an adjoining estate is a point of substance. I suggest to the right hon. Gentleman that in his Amendment after the word "part" ["land forms part"], he should insert some such words as "which will ensure that water will be available in the event of not being available on the estate on which the small holdings are set up."

Mr. MUNRO: The question asked is, Whether there is power under this Clause to take a water supply from outside the estate from winch the small holding is carved? I think not, and I think that would lead to great confusion and difficulty. There is nothing in the Bill or in this Clause which would prevent water being secured from outside sources by agreement from a water pipe or an authority of any particular place. There is no power to take by compulsion water which is outside the estate on which the small holding is. I do nut think it is desirable to introduce that power, and I think it would result in confusion. The Clause I submit is watertight in itself.

Sir J. HOPE: In view of what the Secretary for Scotland has said and promised with regard to consideration before the Clause appears in another place, I do not wish to press my Amendment. My
right hon. Friend (Sir D. Maclcan) asked what I meant. He rcirienlloer that on the question of the Housing Bill it was shown that much of the water which really belonged to Midlothian had been taken by the City of Edinburgh, and he joined with me in trying to get some of the water back front the county of Midlothian. He will recollect that he agreed with me that a Commission ought to be appointed to deal with the very large question of water for housing, and I hope he will continue to press that.
Amendment to the proposed Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Proposed words there inserted in the Bill.

Sir G. YOUNGER: I beg to move, in substituted Sub-section (11, b, ii.), afterthe word "estate" ["land or estate"], to insert the words
Provided that, in the event of the estate (or part thereof) of which the land comprised in any Order made under this section forms part being sold by [...]c auction within lire years after the date of modification of the Order to the landlord, the Board shall pay to the landlord such compensation (if any) for damage or injury done in respect of any depreciation in the selling value of such estate or part thereof in consequence of and directly attributable to the consequence of new holdings under the Order as may be agreed on, or as may be determined, failing aggreement, by the Land Court.
The object. of this is to limit the letting value compensation to certain eases. The complaint has been made that compensation has been given when the owner had no intentions of selling, and he went on living en the interest of his compensation while at the same time enjoying probably a rather larger rent. I want, if possible, to make it a condition that, where the estate is actually realised within rive years—probably three years would be enough—and the loss is actually realised, there should in that case be compensation for the loss in capital value, as under the old Act, and so to that extent to restore the existing system.

Mr. H. HOPE: I beg to second the Amendment.
We think it is only common fairness that, where the creation of these new holdings depreciates the capital value or an estate, adequate compensation should be paid. I cannot imagine that this land settlement scheme will be a success if fairness is not practised. The Prime Minister stated that it was only right and proper that these men should get small holdings
where they so desired. We all desire to assist in that object, and I think the good work will proceed more quickly and smoothly if fair and reasonable compensation is paid where damage is caused. It may be said that if compensation for depreciation is paid nothing more need be done, and in support of that contention the Lindean case is quoted, where the value of a supposed loss in capital value was paid and yet no loss had actually been made by the owner, because he never sold the property. We do not ask for any repetition of the Lindean procedure. We only ask that, where an estate is sold and the loss materialises, that loss should be fairly and squarely met. I think that this is in line with public opinion, which desires to see the scheme carried out in a fair and equitable manner.

Mr. CLYDE: This is, of course, in substance, the same new Clause which was proposed in Committee upstairs, and I am afraid that the reasons which led us to refuse to adopt it upstairs still remain. So far as I am concerned, and I think I may say the same for those who are responsible for die Bill, those reasons have been no respect removed. For one thing, as this Amendment stands, if the estate were sold five times in the course of the five years, each time at a slightly diminished value, a claim for compensation would arise five times. I am sure that is not what is intended, and, therefore, I do not want to dwell upon it.

Sir G. YOUNGER: Are not those legal quibbles?

Mr. CLYDE: The hon. Baronet may call it a legal quibble, but it is the legal interpretation to which his Amendment is subject. That shows the difficulty of accepting an Amendment of this kind. But I do not found my objection upon that. What occurs to We as the crucial consideration is that there is to be, according to the Amendment, contingently upon a sale happening, an opportunity of finding out if the selling value of tins estate has depreciated to an extent not taken into account in the original assessment of compensation on the formation of the small holdings. I wonder if the hon. Baronet has made up his mind as to how for instance, would seek to make out a case? I can imagine that he would say, "The estate has sold for less than I expected, and my purchaser, who is well pleased with his bargain, is willing to go into the Witness-box and say he would have given
£1,000 more for it if there had been no small holdings." Would any Land Court or any arbiter accept that as evidence of depreciation? I do not think so. I am sure that if I were arbiter I should not; I should smell a rat. I know that it has happened in certain cases, I know that it happens in many eases, a very little indeed, and I am told that in a large number of eases it does not happen at all. If the hon. Baronet puts that argument against rue, I am entitled to retort that neither he nor I nor anybody else is prepared to maintain a state of law which has led to the awards made under this head in the past. if that is so, we have to do something to prevent a repetition of those awards, and for that reason we have untended the arbitration Clause. This is really an attempt to get it back under fair conditions, and if I thought that the fair conditions aimed at were practical, then, as far as I am concerned, I should be very willing to lend an ear to a proposal of this kind; but I do not believe they are practical. On what evidence are you going to convince anyone five years afterwards that the fall in pin is attributable to this and not, to something else? I cannot imagine a more hopeless inquiry.

Mr. G. MURRAY: Would you accept a period of one year?

Mr. CLYDE: No; I am bound to say I do not thin k that would make any difference. The difficulty about time is, as the hon. Member knows, that it has resulted in speculative assessments of loss on this head which no fair-minded and sensible man could accept. The famous Lindcan case is a case in point. We have got to find some remedy, and for that reason we have altered the basis of compensation, limiting compensation to lose, of selling value in cases where that loss is represented by depreciation of the letting value of the estate itself. Unless something more practicable than this Amendment can be suggested, I am afraid the matter must stand as in the Bill. This idea of trying to review one year after or five years after, is more likely to result in injustice than the system we have felt our-selves bound to propose, and T find it impossible now, as in Committee, to accept this Amendment.

Sir G. YOUNGER: I mach regret the right hon. Gentleman does not see his way to accept this Amendment or any qualification of it. He knows perfectly well, and everybody else knows, that the moment
you establish smallholdings down goes the value at once, at least that is the case with any estates I know of. You had a case the other day where farms were sold close together at twenty-one, twenty-two, and fourteen and a half years' purchase. Everyone knows it. The Land Court knows it. It gave three years' purchase in one ease, and the best proof that there was not too much paid to Mr. Plummer for his loss of capital value is that he is prepared now to hand you back the money if you are prepared to restore the farm to him. No one has spoken more strongly on the depreciation of capital than my right hon. Friend the Lord Advocate, who proved that the moment small holdings are established the sovereign is reduced to 16s. or 16s. 6d. I say there are any number of tests which could be applied in this matter, arid I regret very much the decision of the Government.
Amendment negatived.

10.0 P.M.

Mr. MUNRO: I beg to move, in substituted Sub-section (11, b, iii), to leave out the words
such land or estate as a sporting subject in so far as such value arises from the withholding of the land or estate from its full possible use as an agricultural or pastoral subject,
and to insert instead thereof the words
the sporting rights over such land or estate in so far as it exceeds the estimated value of such rights if the land or estate were put to the full possible use for which it could be let to agricultural or pastoral tenants.
This Clause has been put down to meet criticism upstairs with regard to the words in the original Bill. My hon. Friend the Member for Aberdeenshire rather objected to the word "withholding," which appeared in the original Clause of the Bill, and I agreed with him that I had no particular admiration for that word. We accordingly considered the Clause during the interval, and it is thought that the proposed wording of this Amendment sets out more clearly the element of the value of sporting rights to be excluded from compensation. I should add, with reference to a question put upstairs, namely, whether golf courses were included in the Clause as drawn, that I think it is perfectly plain that under this Clause which I am proposing to substitute, golf courses are not intended to be included.
Question, "That the words proposed to be left out stand part of the Bill," put, and negatived.
Question- proposed, "That those words be there inserted in the Bill."

Dr. MURRAY: I beg to move, as an Amendment to the proposed Amendment, to leave out the words
in so far as it exceeds the estimated value of such rights if the land or estate were put to the full possible use for Which it could be let to agricultural or pastoral tenants.
The Amendment is in order to make clear as to whether compensation shall be paid for the sporting rights as distinct from the agricultural rights. The new Clause, to my mind, is not much clearer than the old. It would take a lawyer to interpretate it, for it is very involved. If it means that the compensation is only to be given for the agricultural and pastoral value, then why put in these words at all? I am quite sure that if any compensation is to be given for the sporting rights of deer forests which might be prejudicially affected by small holdings near them, it will certainly entail a diminution or, at any rate, retard the progressive development of small holdings in the Highlands of Scotland. I have sympathy with the landlord in losing the value of his sporting rights, but I think we must look upon the sporting rights of deer forests as artificially created, and they ought not to be the subject of compensation when, in the interests of the community, that land is required for small holdings. The landlord is quite entitled to get his sporting rent so long as it is in the interest of the State, but when it comes to establishing small holdings, and the State has to pay compensation, think it is unjust to expect tile State to pay for any sporting rights whatsoever.

Mr. G. MURRAY: On which he has paid rates and taxes for years.

Dr. MURRAY: Of course, when the rent goes clown, down go the rates, so that the interruption of my hon. Friend does not apply. I say that if the sporting rights are allowed for in the compensation, you will not have any small holdings created in the neighbourhood of deer forests, and that would be a great calamity, because I believe that in many parts of the Highlands you cannot create economic small holdings. There has to be some other industry connected with them in order to make them pay—for instance, forestry. The smallholder would be working in the forest helping to plant trees. We think afforestation can most usefully be done in the neighbourhood of deer
forests. A number of hon. Members present appear to think that deer forests are covered with trees. As a matter of fact there are no trees in deer forests. I think that the position of the Government in proposing to compensate sporting rights in these matters is not a sound one.

Major M. WOOD: I beg to second the Amendment to the proposed Amendment.
I should like to put to the Government a point which I put in Committee, and which I do riot think was answered. This Amendment proposes to give compensation for sporting rights only, where those sporting rights exist over and above the full possible use of the land for agricultural or pastoral purposes. But you may take the land and use it for small holdings, and these sporting rights still remain; therefore there is nothing to compensate! What has the Secretary for Scotland to say to that point? If what I say be correct, why put in this Amendment? What is the fullest possible use to which the land can be put for small holdings? Will this Amendment enable a landlord, say, who has a large farm taken over and turned into small holdings to claim for compensation on the score that the sporting value of the large farm is larger than after the farm was divided into small holdings? If so, this appears to me to be most objectionable. The real and chief objection to the Clause in its original form, the word "withholding," has been withdrawn, and I acknowledge that, and that the official Amendment is a distinct advance on the original Clause.

Mr. MUNRO: I must say my hon. and gallant Friend—and he will forgive me for saying so—is very ungrateful. I spent a good deal of time, in conjunction with my advisers, in endeavouring to meet his point, which was that the word "withholding" was objectionable in the Clause. My reward for meeting him is that instead of accepting the result of my labours he moves the rejection of the Clause.

Major WOOD: That is only one point.

Mr. MUNRO: The effect of the Amendment which my hon. and gallant Friend has seconded would be entirely to eliminate compensation for loss of sporting value from the Bill, which limits the compensation to what I ventured upstairs to term "legitimate sporting rights." To eliminate all claim for compensation for loss of sporting value would, in my humble judgment, be neither fair nor just, and I
certainly would not countenance such a course. Accordingly my hon. and gallant Friend will not be surprised when I say that I cannot possibly accept the Amendment which has been moved. My hon. and gallant Friend asked what will happen if the sporting rights remain unaffected? Well, nothing would be paid, and my hon. and gallant Friend would be satisfied.

Major WOOD: They always remain.

Mr. MUNRO: Then no money would be passed.

Major WOOD: That would not prevent claims.

Mr. MUNRO: I do not follow my hon. and gallant Friend.

Major WOOD: It would not prevent claims being made for compensation, and consequent litigation. We want to stop litigation. We know from past experience that Clauses of this kind, dealing with compensation, always give rise to an enormous amount of litigation.

Mr. MUNRO: There was a time when that argument would not have affected me very much, but I am rather at one with my hon. and gallant Friend now in a desire to stop litigation, for the time being. But I really think he has exaggerated the danger. However that may be, I am certain I shall not convince my hon. and gallant Friend. Nevertheless, on the, broad ground which I have ventured to indicate —namely, that this Amendment, if accepted, would exclude all compensation for loss of sporting rights—I am afraid, speaking for the Government, that I could not possibly accept it.

Mr. HOGGE: The difficulty with one is that the form of words chosen by the right hon. and learned Gentleman to meet the objections raised upstairs is, Who is to be the judge of the full possible use to which a deer forest could have been put by agricultural and pastoral tenants, supposing that; either part or a whole was taken for the purpose of small holdings?

Mr. MUNRO: I will answer my hon. Friend's question at once. It is quite simple—the Land Court.

Mr. HOGGE: The Land Court is a variable body. Five years ago it pleased a great many Radicals in this House and displeased the Conservatives. Now it pleases a great many Conservatives and
does not please Radicals. After all, the Land Court is a variable body. Its policy is largely determined by its chairman, and there might be from time to time very different assessment of the values to which these particular estates can be put.. If it were necessary—I do not think it is at the present time, particularly in view of the way we have been met on the Bill—to enter into a long disquisition on this particular topic, I think it would be quite easy to prove that the people who are to be put on the small holdings in Scotland, particularly in the deer-forest areas, do not owe anybody anything. The history of the depopulation in these particular counties in Scotland, and of the clearances on deer forests, the driving out of those who lived and laboured there, is a long and painful theme, which I do not want to enlarge upon now. But I think a case could be made out for setting on one side all this possibility and of going into the Land Court with these particular points. We know the famous Lindean case practically held up legislation on land in Scotland, on both sides, fur a large number of years. Neither Tories nor Liberals in this House, who are Scottish Members, want any Lindean decision in connection with deer forests in Scotland. We do not want another set of decisions of that kind that will hinder us putting people on the land and will mean coming to this House for amending Bills. Unclean carries curious memories with it for Scottish Members. That is why I think there is some merit in the Amendment. The. Mover and the Seconder both come from those parts of Scotland which are the best examples or are within the areas of the best examples of what this means. I think my right hon. and learned Friend opposite agrees there is no particular value in suggesting legislation. He himself has expressed his personal view that meanwhile, while he is Secretary for Scotand, all litigation would stop.

Mr. MUNRO: I never said that.

Mr. HOGGE: I understood my right hon. and learned Friend to express the hope that in the meantime litigation would stop. I was fearful that the moment might arrive when the hon. Baronet the -Member for Ayr Burghs (Sir G. Younger), disagreeing with his policy, would hand him back his coupon and release him
Amendment to the proposed Amendment negatived.

Sir KEITH FRASER: I beg to move, as an Amendment to the proposed Amendment, to leave out the words, "the full possible use for which it could be let to agricultural or pastoral tenants," and to insert instead thereof the words, "its reasonabie use as agricultural or pastoral subject."
We have to treat subject not only as an agricultural and pastoral subject but also as a spurting. subject. I have in mind a Highland estate in nest. Ross, where there are a considerable number of small farms and a deer forest. and ground that should legitimately be legitimately be under deer. The landlord of that estate has put it to the fullest possible use, not only as an win as an agricultural and pastoral but also as a sporting subject. teas, [...]vied sheep fencing for many [...]es at considerable expense along the hid sine at heights from 1,000 to 1,500 feet above the sea level, making use of the ground below for agricultural and pastoral purposes, using the ground above for deer. Generally speaking that high ground is not much used for grazing and agricultural purposes, and it is very steep and rocky. In donne parts there is a good deal of heather at hags and moss, arid the burns are very, steep and dangerous, especially stormy and misty weather, when the barns are in spate. The agricultural value of that land for grazing purposes would not pay the interest on the money invested in erecting the sheep fencing, but it is a very valuable asset not only to the rateable value of the estate, but to everybody connected with it because it bring, in revenue as deer ground and it gives employment to a large number of people diretly and indirectly, and besides that it bings in money to the district.
Those who drew up this Bill have been studying this subject as though there was no population on these estates, and as if they were dealing With estates entirely under deer, but as a matter of fact there is a population of crofters and sheep farmers on some or these estates. If anything materialises from this Bill, which I doubt, and you succeed in putting people on these estates in the High- lands and get a population on the land now under you will have to act on the Which I have indicated. You will have to make use of the land below a certain level for agricultural and pastoral purposes, and the
ground natural to the stag you must leave for stalking. Then you will be able to get the full rateable value out of the highland properties, and you will have more land than you want for agricultural and pastoral purposes. In order to carry out this principle of dividing the stalking subject from the grazing subject, you must have fences. If you had not those fences, you would have the sheep wandering all over the high and you would destroy the estate as an agricultural, pastoral, and sporting estate; you would simply make the estate an agricultural and pastoral subject with an occasional stag on the hills, and nothing would be gained by it. It is perfectly impossible to define what is legitimate sheep ground and what is ground which should be given up to deer. You cannot pick and choose; you cannot say "I will have this hill for sheep and that hill for deer." You must act on a general line of country and run your fence along a level of, say, 1,000 to 1,500 feet up and have the land below that level for agricultural purposes. It is the only possible way to carry out this proposition. When a Jandowner has spent money and put his estate to the full possible use as an agricultural, pastoral, and sporting subject, he should be given compensation if his arrangements are disturbed as if he had made reasonable use of his estate as an. agricultural and pastoral subject.

Colonel L. WARD: I beg to second the Amendment.
I do so making the full apologies which are customary when a Member who has neither a Scottish name nor represents a Scottish constituency ventures to intervene in a Scottish Debate. I consider the only way to make the best use of many estates in Scotland is to put them to a reasonable use as a pastoral and sporting subject. By those meals and those means Only does the owner or the country obtain the full maximum value of the land. In these days of almost universal poverty this is a national rather than a parochial subject. It is the duty of every landowner in the country to put his land to that use which will produce most for the benefit of the community at large. and I maintain, in regard to many Highland estates, that can only be done by utilising all the possibilities of these estates and by combining the agricultural, the pastoral, and the sporting. Look at this from a really national point of view.. What we have to decide is
how that land can he put to the best possible use, first, as a means of producing food, and, secondly, as a means of bringing money into tie country. I maintain that owners who have been reasonable and have combined these three things have done that to a greater extent than anybody else and are entitled to reasonable compensation for all those three amenities.
Take the food question first. The greater part of the deer ground in Scotland is situated 1,500 feet or more above sea level, and agricultural land over 1,200 feet above sea level is very little good for agricultural purposes. it may be possible to conduct agricultural pursuits in some favoured districts up to a 1,000 feet, but beyond that it can only reasonably be used for grazing and for deer. But these may be combined to a reasonable extent without serious injury, either to the one or the other. The high ground in Scotland will carry a large head of sheep, but only from May until October, and during the winter months the sheep have to he taken to the low ground, and the number of head the land can carry depends entirely on the amount of accommodation and of food also during the winter months available on the low ground. But during the summer months there is more food on the hilltops than the sheep require, and it is sound economy to utilise that additional food for deer, especially as the deer succeed in living on the hills during time winter—I do not know how. They are most economical animals to keep on these high barren exposed lands. If there is too much food on the hilltops it is wasted, and I maintain the deer should be allowed to consume it. It is of advantage to the food supply of the country, which is increased by exactly the number of deer shot. It may be said this is not meat for the working classes, but the wealthier people eat venison instead of mutt en, and the result is that there is so much more mutton sent into the towns for distribution among the working classes.
Then book at the matter from the point of view of the amount of money these forests bring into the country. Only two classes of people in this country in these days are well enough off to he able to rent deer boxes—the War profiteers and the rich American, and when the Committee dealing with increases of war wealth have done their work there will only be one class—the rich Americans. I ask the House to consider what an enormous advantage it is to this country, in
its present poverty-stricken state, to have that money brought here. To my knowledge, moors and forests were letting for last season at prices from £3,000 toA£4000 for three months. Rich Americans were willing to pay that amount of money. Consider the advantage that has been to this country.

Dr. MURRAY: Is the hon. and gallant Gentleman in favour of paying State compensation equal to what these rich Americans are paying for the deer forests?

Colonel WARD: I am coming to that point presently. When an estate for shooting is let for, say, £3,000. it means that £3,000 in good golden dollars is brought to this country. What do we do with those dollars? We send them back to America to buy food. For that £3,000 in good golden dollars we can buy something like 750 quarters of wheat delivered to the mill at Liverpool, which is a bread ration for 1,500 or 2,000 people for a year. In other words, for the privilege of climbing about the beastly Scottish hills, letting off his rifle—perhaps he is a bad shot—getting soaked to the skin every day, ruining several suits of best clothes and wearing out several pairs of expensive Edinburgh brogues, the rich American sends to this country food sufficient to keep nearly 2,000 people alive for the whole year. Therefore, I maintain that the man who organises his estate to bring this advantage to the country deserves, if not full compensation, certainly reasonable compensation. We must not forget in these times, when the exchange is going against us, that the sporting rights of this country form one of our invisible exports which it is to our interest to conserve.

Mr. MUNRO: I am sure the hon. and gallant Member (Colonel L. Ward) has no reason to apologise for intervening in a Scottish Debate, for his knowledge of the subject which he has discussed seems to be very extensive. I hope that on the next occasion he addresses the Scottish Members, whether in the House or in Committee, he will not think it necessary to use such strong adjectives about the Scottish hills. The Mover of the Amendment made an interesting speech and also a pessimistic one. I do not share in his pessimism. He doubted whether this Bill would do any good. I do not share that doubt. I have a profound belief in the Rill, and I believe it will do a great deal of
good. Perhaps I may now be allowed to return to the precise Amendment which the House has to consider. If hon. Members will be good enough to look at the Order Paper they will see that the subject we are discussing is whether the words, "the full possible use for which it could be let to agricultural or pastoral tenants," should be displaced in order to insert the words "its reasonable use as an agricultural or pastoral subject." That is the whole topic of discussion. I put it to the House, with some confidence, that there is no substantial difference between the Amendment I have proposed and the Amendment to the Amendment which has been proposed and seconded by my hon. and gallant Friends. It is the commercial value which is pointed to by my Amendment. Can, that be otherwise than a reasonable use? I should have thought the two phrases were really interchangeable.

Sir K. FRASER: High ground and heather ground is not of much value as a pastoral subject. If you are going to put an estate to its full possible use as an agricultural and pastoral and sporting subject, you must eliminate the high ground as a pastoral subject; otherwise you are doing away with the sporting value entirely. The Amendment reads, "the full possible use to Which it could be let to agricultural and pastoral tenants." There is very little value in the high ground for grazing purposes.

Mr. MUNRO: I quite appreciate that. If the words had beers "full possible use as an agricultural or pastoral subject," I could understand the criticism, but when the criterion is what it could be let for, whether the ground is high or low—

Sir K. FRASE: You would not get the same value from the estate.

Mr. MUNRO: I have submitted my view. I am advised, and I think the advice is competent, that there is no substantial difference between my Clause and the Amendment which my hon. and gallant Friend has moved. I am afraid I cannot accept it.

Sir A. WILLIAMSON: I cannot quite agree with my right hon. Friend. I think there is some difference. We are not comparing anything which is an actual fact, but the estimated value of such rights if the land or estate were put to the full possible use for which it could be let. "Full possible" appears to me to introduce
something which may be unreasonable— possible but unreasonable—and there is a difference between the two proposals.

Mr. MUNRO: I think my right hon. Friend is now referring to the next Amendment.

Sir A. WILLIAMSON: Not altogether, because this takes the place of the words "full possible." When you are only estimating the value and then add the words "full possible," it is quite conceivable that you may do a thing that is possible but unreasonable. Therefore, I suggest that if the Amendment really contains within it all that my right hon. Friend desires to be contained he had better accept the Amendment instead of his own words.

Mr. HOGGE: I hope my right hon. Friend will not take that advice, but will stick to his own words. I do not like them, but I like them very much better than these. Using the word "reasonable" means the introduction of all sorts of discussions, whereas "full possible" is a maximum which everyone can know. "Reasonable" is a question of degree.
Amendment to the proposed Amendment negatived.
Proposed words there inserted in the, Bill.

Mr. W. SHAW: I beg to move, at the end of substituted Sub-section (11, b, iii.), to insert the words
Provided that if a landlord shall have expended money on the erection or improvement et a lodge and outbuildings for sporting purposes on the land comprised in the scheme, or any estate of which such land forms part, or on a road of access, or a water supply to such lode or outbuildings, or on roads for sporting purposes on such land or estate, the compensation payable to such landlord shall include compensation for depreciation (if any) in the letting value attributable to such expenditure where such depreciation arises in consequence of and is directly attributable to the constitution of and holdings under the scheme.
Deer forests have not all been established on the system suggested by the hon. Member for East Edinburgh (Mr. Hogge). There was a time, from about 1580 to 1900, when letting was very difficult. Tenants were not obtainable for the grazing, and it was essential, in the interests of the landlord, that he should utilise his capital invested in the land by new methods. At that time many lodges were built, and improvements were made in equipping the -estates as deer forests and sporting estab-
lishments. It cannot be denied that, if small holdings are established on these deer forests, a different class of tenant will be introduced, who might not have any use for much of the equipment which has been provided, so that there will be a loss, and it is only reasonable and just that compensation should be paid in that respect. I dare say the Lord Advocate will ask, as he did previously, "How are you going to make out the claim?" I should not endeavour to make out a claim myself; I should employ an astute lawyer like the Lord Advocate.

Sir G. YOUNGER: I beg to second the Amendment. I am not certain whether a proportion, at all events, of the compensation suggested is not already included in the Bill. There is a Clause dealing with loss of capital value, and I am not sure that that would not cover sporting value, but it is desirable that we should know exactly how the matter stands. It is certainly reasonable that some compensation should be paid in such cases as my hon. Friend has mentioned. It is monstrous that a whole forest, probably a natural forest, which has been equipped at great expense, should be destroyed.

Mr. CLYDE: I remember that, when the Bill was in Committee, I tried to make as clear as I possibly could what the general effect of the compensation Clause was. May I repeat what I said upstairs so far as to explain that, whereas under Subsection (11, a), full compensation is given for every kind of damage which a landlord can suffer and has suffered as a direct result of the constitution of small holdings, sub-head (b), under its three headings, excludes certain items of possible claim, but, except in so far as those three items exclude claims for compensation, full compensation is provided in this Bill, as in the Act of 1911, for everything that the landlord suffers. That is the general principle. When we came to details I tried to make it quite clear upstairs that if an estate contained on its surface a residence which had a letting value—either a mansion house or some other house. I remember the phrase—and if the letting value of that house is diminished or interfered with by the constitution of small holdings in its immediate neighbourhood or by the destruction of the little bit of sporting value of the rights that were included in it, then the diminished letting value of the residence would constitute a good ground
of compensation, and it still is, Accordingly, if there is on a particular estate a mansion house, or perhaps what may have been an old cheap farm house which is now a lodge, let with a grouse moor or a deer forest, and if the letting value of that house, which the owner has built or bought, is diminished, then there is compensation in this Bill and there always was. In the valuation roll, wherever there is a grouse moor or a deer forest and there is some place to live in for the tenant, the entry is "lodge so many hundred pounds, shootings, or deer forest and shootings so many hundred pounds." Wherever there is a case of that kind, and the proprietor can show that the house which he has put up or bought with the estate is rendered useless or has its letting value diminished, then there is compensation under the Bill, and he will get it not only for the house but also, of course, for those appurtenances mentioned here, like water supply. How far he would get it for access is certainly a question of circumstances. One earn imagine a road or access to other premises as well. Therefore, I cannot say that, wherever there is a road that leads to a house or residence used as a lodge, there would be compensation; but I can say with regard to the Amendment which is proposed that the bulk of what the hon. Members have in mind is covered, covered in this sense, that as regards any capital expenditure that has been made by a proprietor on his estate, for the purpose of equipping it with a residence and those things that are necessary to make a residence useful and accessible, the Bill does not exclude any claim for compensation if—always if—the letting value of that house or residence has been interfered with by the creation of small holdings. A very large part if not the whole of the substance of what the hon. Members have in mind was always provided by this Bill, and is now provided in this respect that the Amendment already made by my hon. Friend leaves that matter exactly where it was.

Mr. SHAW: In view of what the Lord Advocate has said, I beg to ask leave to withdraw the Amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Mr. HOGGE: I beg to move, at the end of substituted Sub-section (11, b, iii.), to insert the words
(iv) any allowance on account of the tenure of the new holder or holders under this Act or on account of loss or limitation of control over the land taken for a new holding or holdings and over the new holder or holders or on account of the substitution of a number of new holders for a single tenant.
This is adding a fourth compensation to deal with what we know familiarly as the Lindean case.

Major M. WOOD: I beg to second the Amendment.

Mr. MUNRO: I hope my hon. Friend will accept the assurance I offered upstairs that having regard to the previous provisions in this Bill, the Amendment is unnecessary. Of course the Lindean case was decided before this Bill was on its way to the Statute Book. Compensation has already been limited to the injury done to or depreciation in the selling value of land or estate. With that limitation this Amendment is unnecessary.

Mr. HOGGE: I should like an assurance that there is no possibility of a claim for compensation on the ground that the owner of the land loses control over the lives of the smallholders put on his estate.

Mr. MUNRO: There is no difficulty at all; I give the assurance.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Sir G, YOUNGER: I beg to move, in substituted Sub-section (11, c), after the word "relief" ["any benefit or relief resulting to"], to insert the words
enhancing the letting value of the land comprised in the scheme or of any estate of which such land forms part.

Mr. H. HOPE: I beg to second the Amendment.

Mr. MUNRO: According to my recollection, I promised in Committee upstairs that I would endeavour to find words before Report to meet a criticism which I thought was well founded. I think the words of the Amendment are appropriate to meet the point. I think they bring the betterment Clause into line with the "worsement" Clause.
Amendment agreed to.
Further Amendment made: In substituted Sub-section (11, b, ii.), after the word "Book" ["Landholders' Holdings Book, and shall"], insert the words "as if it were an order of the Land Court.—[Mr Munro.]

CLAUSE 10.—(Amendment of Section 16 of Act of 1911.)

For the proviso to Sub-section (1) of Section sixteen of the Act of 1911 (which relates to amendment of law as to enlargement of holdings) there shall be substituted the following proviso:
Provided that all applications for enlargement under Section eleven of the Act of 1886 shall be made to the Board, and the provisions of the Section of this Act relating to the constitution of new holdings shall, with the necessary modifications, apply as fully for the purpose of applications for enlargement as for the purpose of the constitution of new holdings, and accordingly the Board shall be substituted for the Land Court in Sections twelve, thirteen, fourteen, fifteen and twenty-one of the Act of 1886 (except the last paragraph of the said Section twenty-one), and the said Section twenty-one shall be further amended by the omission there-from of the words or otherwise interested in' and of the words including heritable creditors holding securities over the same '.

Major M. WOOD: I beg to move, after the word "twelve," to insert the words "except the last paragraph of the said Section twelve."
Objection is often urged against legislation by reference, but this is legislation by double reference, because mention is made of the Act of 1911 and of the Act of 1886.

Mr. MUNRO: I propose to accept this and the following Amendment, subject to the possible redrafting of the terminology in another place.
Amendment agreed to.
Further Amendment made: Leave out the word "paragraph" ["last paragraph"], and insert instead thereof the words "two paragraphs."—[Major M. Wood.]

CLAUSE 11.—(Powers of Land Court as to Common Pastures or Grazings.)

For Sub-section (5) of Section twenty-four of the Act of 1911 shall he substituted the follow-Sub-section:
(c) The Land Court may, on the application of the Board, and on the like conditions, grant pasture or grazing rights on a common pasture or grazing to cottars who have been in use to pasture or graze stock thereupon, if satisfied that no other land is available for that purpose.

Sir K. FRASER: I beg to move, in substituted Sub-section (5, c), after the word "who" ["cottars who have "], to insert the words "with the express consent of the tenants of such common pasture," and
I shall afterwards move to strike out from the word "therefore" to the end of the Sub-section.
This Amendment will affect very few cottars, and only those who have been in use to graze their stock upon the common pasture land of crofters without their consent, in fact, often against their wish. If this Sub-section be allowed to stand as it is, a cottar may be granted pasture and grazing rights on the common pasture of crofters and he will become a member of the club farm for a crofting township. The common grazing on the hills and the arable land is nothing more nor less than a club farm; in fact you will be making a man a member of a club by law against the wishes of the members. he will have. the right to attend all their meetings and interfere in all the affairs of the crofters. Tie words "if satisfied that no other land is available for that purpose" seem to me unnecessary, for I doubt whether there is a Highland estate where you cannot find land which is available for grazing. I venture to say that the Land Court or Board should make land available oil which the cottar may graze his stock, either on land used as a sheep farm, or, better still, on land now under deer; but do not foist him on to the common pasture land of the crofters against their wishes.

11.0 P. M.

Captain ELLIOT: I beg to second the Amendment. This is another case of an attack by the bureaucracy on the rights of the ordinary free citizens of Britain. What right had this double distilled bureaucracy, the Land Court, to come on to common grazing land and to insist that some cottar or other who happens to have taken their wandering fancy shall be given full grazing rights there? This man may be foisted upon this common grazing without any consideration for the rights of the existing tenants. A similar assault was made in Russia by Lenin and Trotsky on the rights of the free peasantry, and was successfully defeated, and I hope that this Amendment will enable us to defeat this similar assault by a no less wicked bureaucracy, the Scottish Land Court.

Mr. MUNRO: I hope my hon. and gallant Friend will not press the Amend-merit. It is an Amendment which is being supported by an analogy which, I venture to think, is somewhat remote. The fact of the matter is that if this Amendment were accepted, you might as well shut
down the whole system of common pasture and common grazing, because it would mean that one person would have the right to veto the whole proceeding. If the hon. and gallant Gentleman will withdraw his first Amendment, I. shall be very happy to accept the next one.

Sir K. FRASER: I beg to withdraw the Amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Amendment made: In substituted Sub-section (5, c) leave out the words "if satisfied with no other land is available for that purpose" "— [Sir K. Fraser.]

CLAUSE 12.—(Power to Make Advances to Land Banks, etc.)

In addition to the purposes mentioned in Section six of the Act of the Board may, on such terms and conditions as they think proper, with the approval of the Secretary for Scotland and the Treasury, apply the Agriculture (Scotland) Fund constituted under Section five of that Act in making or guaranteeing advances, either directly or indirectly, to land banks or co-operative or credit societies having for their object or one of their objects the assistance of tenants under Part I. of this Act, landholders or statutory small tenants in the stocking, equipment, and profitable working of their holdings.

Sir J. HOPE: I beg to move, at the end, to insert the words
and may, with the approval of the Secretary for Scotland, apply the said fund in the acquisition, for such sum or annual payment as failing agreement may be determined by the Land Court, of land for the purposes of facilitating the constitution of new landholders' holdings and the enlargement of landholders' holdings.
The object of this Amendment is to enable the Scottish Board of Agriculture to have the option of purchasing land for the purpose of creating small holdings. Of course we all know that Part II. of the Bill is an Amendment of the 1911 Act, which only allows the creation of small holdings under the leasehold system, and the Secretary for Scotland and all members of the Government have acknowledged that in many cases purchase is the best system. They have themselves introduced a system of purchase into Part I. of this Bill, but that is only operative for two years. I am not suggesting that it would not be possible out of the fund to proceed further with purchase, but if in England small holdings can be constituted entirely by purchase, why should not Scotland have the same option? There
have been certain cases in the past, and there are likely to be in the future, in which I believe the Board of Agriculture would have been, or would be, only too glad to proceed by purchase. They thought- it the best system, and one which would save many complications, but they were prevented. If only my right hon. Friend the Secretary for Scotland would accept this very small and not material Amendment, I am sure it might be of great benefit and could do no harm to anyone.

Major W. MURRAY: I beg to second the Amendment.

Mr. MUNRO: I am afraid, for reasons I gave upstairs, it will not be possible for me to accept this Amendment. This involves grafting a system of purchase on the Small Landholders Act. It is quite true that the principle of purchase has been recognised in this Bill, and that Part I. deals freely with it. Nevertheless, that is a temporary system which at the end of two years ends—.-it is part of an emergency measure. That is the difference between our system in Scotland and in England. where purchase is not exceptional, as this Bill proposes to make it. The proposal of the hon. and gallant Gentleman means that even after two years -have expired, under Part I. of the Bill, the Board of Agriculture shall be entitled to go on purchasing. The fund of the Board is already too overtaxed in meeting purposes at present to attempt any such wide extension as would be involved. The hon. and gallant Gentleman says the Amendment is a small one. I regard it as an exceedingly important one. No doubt it is a power conferred on the Board; but once it is conferred public pressure from various quarters would be exerted on the Board to purchase, rather than exercise its powers under the Small Landholders Act, and it would be very difficult to resist. I really dread mixing up the two systems in the way my hon. and gallant Friend proposes; and I think that, while in theory one may agree, in practice his proposal is inadmissible.

Sir J. HOPE: I am sorry the Secretary for Scotland cannot accept the Amendment. He does not seem to have much confidence in the strength of mind of his own Board or of their capability to resist public pressure. I regret his decision, but I do not propose to go to a Division.
Amendment negatived.

CLAUSE 15.— (Allotments Consultative Committees in Certain Burgh.)

In the case of every burgh where the Secretary for Scotland so requires, it shall be the duty of the town council from time to time to appoint a committee, which may consist in whole or in part of persons who are not members of the council, to consult with the council on matters relating to the provision, equipment, and management of allotments.

Mr. MUNRO: I beg to move, to leave out the words "from time to time" and to insert instead thereof the word "annually."
This is a formal Amendment to meet the point raised upstairs by the hon. Gentleman the Member for East Edinburgh. My hon. Friend pointed out that nearly all town council committees were, in point of fact, appointed annually, and, on consideration, I have come to think he is right.
Amendment agreed to.

CLAUSE 23.—(Preference for Persons who have Served in War.)

During the period of two years after the passing of this Act, it shall be the duty of the Board, in selecting persons to be settled on any land belonging to the Board, and in considering applications for the registration of new holders or the enlargement of existing holdings under the Small Landholders (Scotland) Acts, 1886 to as amended by this Act, to give preference to suitable persons who have served in the Forces of the Crown in the present or in any previous War.

Mr. W. GRAHAM: I beg to move, after the word "persons" ["to suitable persons who have served"], to insert the words "or the sons or fathers of such persons."
In view of the lateness of the hour I would not have put forward this, or the following Amendment, but for the fact that we regard them as of great importance. I need hardly say that there was not the slightest difference of opinion in any part of the Committee on the point of the provision in the Clause for preference to those who have served in the War. But it was suggested that that preference should be extended to the dependants of such persons, in keeping with the practice which has been adopted, not only by many Departments of the State, but by many public and private people outside. An objection was offered to our proposal that it was too wide in character, and that the effect of it would be seriously to undermine the value of the preference for the discharged men. We were bound to recognise and admit the force of that criticism, and accordingly we now confine the preference to the discharged men and rela-
tives of soldiers whom we consider are more closely affected by their loss, namely, the sons who are rising up to succeed them, or the fathers where the younger men had no families of their own. On the whole, this restricted Amendment is a reasonable proposal, and I hope, in the circumstances which face these sons and these fathers, and in the light of the practice obtaining not only in public Departments but is private firms, that the Government may see their way to adopt it.

Mr. ADAMSON: I beg to second the Amendment. When we were discussing this matter in Committee we had an undertaking of some sort or another from the Secretary for Scotland that he would consider a restricted Amendment on the Report stage, and I therefore hope that the right hon. Gentleman will see his way to accept this Amendment.

Dr. MURRAY: I had a similar Amendment, only a little more limited, on the Paper when we were in Committee, but I think this Amendment is an improvement. I know that there are very many people to whom it would be a very great consideration if this second preference, so to speak, were given to the father in some cases and to the son in others. I hope, therefore, that the right hon. Gentleman will adopt this or some similar Amendment.

Mr. MUNRO: I confess that I have considerable difficulty in accepting this Amendment as framed, though it is true that it is framed in quite a different way from the Amendment upstairs. These two Amendments were moved front two different quarters, one giving the preference to the sons of persons who have served in the War—that Amendment, speaking from recollection, received very faint support—and the other giving the preference to parents of sons who have served.

Mr. ADAMSON: It was the "dependants," not the "sons," which was the much wider Amendment.

Mr. MUNRO: My right hon. Friend may be quite correct, but it does not affect my argument. So far as the parent was concerned, it is quite true that that proposal received more support in the Committee, and it was in regard to that particular proposal that I intended to look into the matter before the Report stage. I have now an Amendment before me which combines these two things. It is not "dependants," but it is a. proposal to go wider
than parents; in fact, it combines the two Amendments moved upstairs with the substitution of the word "sons" for the word "dependants." It is perfectly obvious that this enormously widens the preference which the Bill contemplates and widens it to the detriment of the ex-Service man. I can quite appreciate that there may be cases which this Amendment would fit, but on the other hand there may be cases where it would be a great pity to give the preference to the son or parent of an ex-Service man. The ex-Service man might not desire to have a small holding, and his son or his father might not have served and might have no particular qualification for a holding. If the circumstances were such as these, it would be a great pity to give a holding to such a person to the exclusion of some deserving ex-Service man who desired a holding, I am very much afraid, if I accept this Amendment, that I shall enormously widen the area of choice, and, in so far as I widen the area, I shall correspondingly restrict the rights and claims of the ex-Service men, who, as I am sure every Member desires, should have priority. It is in these circumstances that I feel very great difficulty in accepting this Amendment, and I hope on reconsideration it will not be pressed.

Mr. HOGGE: I am sure my right hon. Friend desires to do justice to the situation. It is time that ex-Service men ought to have the first preference. There are bound to be a number of cases in which the parents of serving men are even more deserving than ex-Service men. A man may claim ex-Service who served all the time in this country, and there may be in some counties in Scotland the parent of a family of boys who have ail actually been killed in the War, or three or four sons so seriously wounded that they cannot engage in any kind of reasonable occupation. Is a father of that kind to be denied the right to a small holding before all ex-Service men have had their turn? The same with the case of the sons. The words of the Amendment may not meet the case, but it is the duty of the Government to find suitable words. In addition to ex-Service men, we want the class of person I have mentioned to have an equal chance, and I would rather give such a man a chance even before the ex-soldier. Perhaps the right hon. Gentleman will promise that in another place he will make another attempt to add words which,
while not enlarging the preference, will still give this class of person a right to a small holding.

Sir J. HOPE: If this Amendment were carried may I point out that the father or son of a soldier who has served at home would also have the right. I think this proposal might be altered to include the sons -or fathers of such persons who have fallen in the War.

Mr. MUNRO: I have no hesitation in giving the assurance that this matter will be reconsidered. The Amendment is far too wide. My hon. Friend opposite confined his observations to the question of the parents and said nothing about the sons. I will look into the matter along with my right hon. Friend, and, if necessary, introduce appropriate words in another place.

Mr. ADAMSON: I should think if words in the spirit and the definition laid down by the hon. and gallant Member for North Midlothian (Sir J. Hope)—a concession in favour of the father or son of those who have fallen in the War—were accepted by the Government, we would be quite satisfied, and that being as I understand the intention of the Government we are quite prepared to withdraw the Amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Mr. W. GRAHAM: I beg to move, at the end, to insert the words
Provided always that in cases where existing smallholders are displaced in order to provide accommodation for persons who have served in the Forces of the Crown in the present or in any previous war it shall be the duty of the Board to provide for such existing smallholders as express a wish to that effect alternative holdings as far as possible in the same locality and of subsantially the same size and nature as the holdings of which they have been deprived.
Only a few sentences are, I think, necessary to explain the situation which is dealt with in the Amendment. Up to the present time a certain number of ex-Service men have been settled on the soil of Scotland, and I presume that that has been done under the Small Holdings Acts, 1916–18. But unfortunately under the process existing smallholders are being displaced, and at the present time I have in my possession a letter from the Board of Agriculture in Scotland, addressed to one of these smallholders, explaining that they are powerless in the matter, that they must give preference to Service men,
and while they regret that any smallholder has to be displaced, they are quite unable to follow any other course. I have put down this proviso in order to defeat what appears to me to be a perfectly incredible situation in Scotland, where they are actually at the present moment putting a number of smallholders on the soil in order to make way for others. I can only assume that that is due to the inadequacy of existing legislation. In moving this Amendment, however, I am in doubt whether the position is not now met by the extra powers which appear to be conferred under the first Clause of this Bill, which, in the second Section, removes certain limitations under the Small Holdings (Colonies) Acts; and if the situation is met as regards these existing smallholders by this extension I should have no desire to press my Amendment. But if existing small landholders are not protected, then, it seems to me, that the only course open to us is to propose an Amendment to the present Bill such as will put it in the power of the Board to provide alternative accommodation for the men displaced, and to see that the accommodation so provided is reasonably in keeping with the nature, size, and general characteristics of the holdings of which they have been deprived. Mainly for the purpose of obtaining information on this point I beg to move the Amendment standing in my name.

Mr. ADAMSON: I want in a word or two to second the Amendment. This is one of the phases of the situation which requires most careful examination, and we ought to have from the Secretary for Scotland an explanation of what he proposes to do with the smallholders who are being displaced.

Mr. CLYDE: There must be some misconception and misunderstanding—and a rather serious one—underlying this Amendment. There has never been—and, in fact, I do not see how there could be—any such thing as a displacement of holders possessing small holdings under the Act of 1911. Such a holder cannot be deprived of his holding. He has got security of tenure, and I do not know whether hon. Members realise that at this moment. Nobody—it does not matter whether it be the Board of Agriculture or anybody else—can deprive such a holder of his holding, except for misconduct, and there never has been and is not now any
case in which a small landholder has been displaced to make room for a Service man. Accordingly, as to the whole substructure on which this proposal is based, it appears there is none. I am sure the hon. Member would not have said what he did if he had not good ground for it, but I cannot help thinking that the whole substratum of the Amendment is something else altogether. If I am not mistaken, the case ho Has just put is not that of the displacement of any small landholder, but the displacement of certain comparatively small tenants—ordinary tenants on estates—which has been effected by the Board of Agriculture for the purpose of settling Service men. I believe there have been some cases in which interferences have been made with comparativly small tenancies. I am sure the Board of Agriculture would never have done that if the circumstances had admitted of their avoiding that course. It is certainly not one they would take ordinarily. As to the particulars of any individual case of that kind, I must confess myself at the moment to be quite at a loss, because I do not know them, therefore I cannot present any remarks upon them, but the hon. Member can take my assurance, given not without consultation, that there has not been and there is no such thing as the displacement of a small landholder, which is what his Amendment applies to, in order to make room for a Service man. Therefore the Amendment has no real mischief to remedy, and accordingly it is impossible for us to accept it.

Mr. GRAHAM: I can only undertake to place in the hands of the right hon. Gentleman the Board of Agriculture's letter deploring the course they have been compelled to adopt.

Mr. CLYDE: I hope the hon. Member will do so. I am sure it will turn out not to be the case of a small landholder.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

CLAUSE 24.—(Advances to Tenants of Small Holdings.)

During the period of two years after the pausing of this Act, and subject to the provisions of any Regulations made by the Treasury, the Board may make or guarantee an advance by way of loan to any tenant of a small holding provided by the Board under the Small Holding colonies Acts, 1916 and 1918, or to any new holder of a small holding under the Small Landholders (Scotland) Acts, 1886 to 1911, as amended by this Act, who is regis-
tered as such after the passing of this Act, of such sums as the Board think necessary for the purchase of live stock, seeds,. fertilisers, and implements required for the purposes of the holding; and the making of such advances shall be a purpose for which the Board may borrow money under the Section of this Act relating to loans to the Board.

Mr. MUNRO: I beg to move, after the word "make" ["the Board may snake or guarantee"], to insert the words "or provide for making."
This is a verbal Amendment in consequence of a promise I made upstairs on this Clause. The Clause deals with advances to smallholders. It is part of the emergency scheme that money will be available for two years only. The criticism which was made, and which I desire to meet, was that the individual tenants or holders might not be actually on the land at the end of the two years, although the land might have been selected. That criticism came from the hon. and gallant. Member for Aberdeen (Major M. Wood). I have endeavoured to meet his criticism by this Amendment.
Amendment agreed to.
Further Amendment made: After the word "making" ["and the snaking of such advances"] insert the words "or provision for the making."—[Mr. Munro.]

SECOND SCHEDULE.

Minor and Consequential Amendments of the Act of 1911.

Enactment to be amended.
Amendments.


Small Landholders (Scotland) Act, 1911 (1 & 2 Geo. 5. c. 49).

Amendment made: At end of the Schedule insert


"Section 35.
For the words Land Court there shall be substituted the word 'Board'."—[Mr. Munro.]

Mr. SPEAKER: The last Amendment on the Paper in the name of the hon. Member for South Ayrshire (Mr. James Brown) to amend the Fourth Schedule goes beyond the scope of this Bill.
Bill, as amended in the Standing Committee and on Consideration, re-committed to a Committee of the Whole House in respect of the new Clause (Further Money to be Placed at the Disposal of Board).—[Mr. Munro.]
Bill accordingly considered in Committee.

[MR. WHITLEY in the Chair.]

NEW CLAUSE.—(Further Money to be Placed at Disposal of Board.)

In addition to the stuns not exceeding one hundred and eighty-five thousand pounds specified in Section five of the Act of 1911 there shall be placed at the disposal of the Board for the purposes specified in Section six of the said Act, during each of the ten years commencing the first day of April in the year nineteen hundred and twenty, a sum not exceeding fifteen thousand pound's, annually voted by Parliament, for the said purposes; and any sums so voted shall be paid into and administered as part of the Agriculture (Scotland) Fund constituted under Section five of the said Act."— [Mr. Munro.]

Brought up, and read the first time.

Mr. MUNRO: I beg to move, "That the Clause be read a second time." The reason why the Bill has had to be recommitted is because the money which has been secured for the benefit of crofters was secured after tie original Financial Resolution had been passed and accordingly a new Financial Resolution became necessary. Inasmuch as this Clause provides a comparatively large sum of money for expenditure in Scotland I apprehend no very strong objection will be taken.
Question put, and agreed to.
Clause accordingly read a second time and added to the Bill.
Bill reported; as amended on recommittal, considered.
Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the Bill be now read the third time."

Mr. HOGGE: I wish to express satisfaction that on Report we have been able to discuss as Scottish Members a great number of improvements to the Bill that we were not allowed to discuss in Grand Committee. It has been a source of great satisfaction to Scottish Members generally that we have had that opportunity on the floor of the House of which we were deprived upstairs, and it bears out the attitude taken up by many of us upstairs by many of us refusing to continue the discussion upstairs if we were deprived of those opportunities. I believe the Bill is an improvement on anything we have got, and while there are things we can criticise I hope now my right hon. Friend will deal expeditiously with the administration of it. We have been waiting a very long time and the position is not satisfactory at the moment with regard to the number of men who are on the land, and I very much hope great vim and vigour
will be put into the administration so that the fruits of our efforts here which have been delayed through causes over which the right hon. Gentleman has no control, may actually come into force.
Question put, and agreed to.
Bill accordingly read the third time, and passed.

Orders of the Day — UNEMPLOYMENT BENEFIT BILL.

Considered in Committee, and reported, without Amendment; read the third time, and passed.

Orders of the Day — PUBLIC LIBRARIES BILL.

Order for Second Reading read.

The PARLIAMENTARY SECRETARY to the BOARD of EDUCATION (Mr. Herbert Lewis): I beg to move that the Bill be now read a second time."
I hope the House will allow this Bill to be read a second time. The Board of Education have been receiving most urgent representations, by deputation and otherwise, from all parts of the country, from Library authorities, who complain that, owing to the limitation of the 1d. rate, they are wholly unable to pay any war bonuses to their staff. There are many of them who are actually unable to buy any new books. There are some who do not know how to meet the expenses of the current year, and I know of cases in which branch libraries have had to be closed. We ask for a Second Reading of this Bill in order to remove the existing limitation of rate. There is also the further point that the Carnegie trustees have been establishing libraries in rural areas all over the country at their own expense, but they are only able to carry on for term of years, and their work is
brought to a standstill owing to the fact that under the existing law it is doubtful whether any county authority can undertake to carry on the work. We want to make that point perfectly clear.

Mr. HOGGE: I agree that my hon. Friend should get the Second Reading. Does this Bill apply to the libraries of the United Kingdom?

Mr. LEWIS: No. The libraries of England and Wales only.

Mr. HOGGE: It deals simply with allowing the municipal authorities to increase the 1d. rate?

Mr. LEWIS: It does that, and it also-enables the county authorities to undertake that they will carry on the work of the Carnegie trustees, and to act as Library authorities for their areas.

Mr. HOGGE: Is there a limit put upon the amount of rate?

Mr. LEWIS: No. There is no limit in the Bill, but any authority that desires to do so can fix its own limit.
Question put, and agreed to.
Bill accordingly read a second time, and committed to a Standing Committee.

The remaining Orders were read, and postponed.

It being after half-past Eleven of the clock, Mr. SPEAKER adjourned the House, without Question put, pursuant to the Standing Order.

Adjourned at sixteen minutes before Twelve o'clock.